The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer

In the reading from Richard Zitrin and Carol Langford’s “The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer,” we are exploring the ethical issues involved in the courtroom during trials. Specifically, in what ways attorneys influence the jury both directly and indirectly. In chapter seven of the book they tell of Abe Dennison who is a trial attorney that changes his persona for the trial. He is described as a “smoother the silk” man outside the courtroom but that all changes when he is on stage. He is indeed on stage and the jury is his audience and his job is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury and make sure and portray his client in the best possible light. One of the most important aspects of his role is to create a rapport with jury; to make them like him. After all, we are most easily persuaded by those who we like and by whom we are alike. So when Dennison goes on trial he leaves his smooth talking nature outside the courtroom and adopts a down home good ole boy attitude so the jury can relate to him better. He also talks in layman terms in an attempt to exemplify his persuasive appeal. He is not alone with his tricks that he uses to influence the jury; many attorneys apply different techniques to lead the jury in the path that is most advantageous to their clients’ particular situation. This only seems to make sense because when I think of a trial I think of competition. When I think of competition I think of winning. However, there is a significant moral issue involved here: Where do you draw the line between persuading the jury by the evidence and persuading them using psychological techniques? It is hard to draw a line because the psychological techniques can be so indirect that they are difficult to prove. When we think of trial situations we can effectively compare it to the American attorney’s time to shine reminiscent of a movie scene. Since such a small percentage of cases actually end up at trial the attorney wants to obviously win his or her case but they also want to impress their colleagues. At trial is when the American attorney is closely criticized and recognized for their techniques. So let’s let at these different persuasion techniques and see if they can be justified from a moral and ethical standpoint. When we dress differently so as to influence the jury to relate to us and to like us, is that unethical? I don’t think that there is even an unethical argument that anyone could make about this particular point. Let’s think about today when we chose what our outfit for a day would include; most of us thought about the social norms in the role we played that day. We choose to dress in a way that is socially acceptable. You would not wear a suit to do construction when your co-workers are wearing coveralls because that is not the social norm. You would not fit in within your group therefore you would not be accepted by your group. Humans are all social beings and therefore we all want to fit in and be accepted by the groups in which we belong. There is no difference between choosing your behavior or attire for the courtroom and changing your behaviors or attire based on what type of work you are doing on a given day. This is a social psychological principal that we want to be accepted in the roles that we play. Therefore it is only natural to want to appeal to those around and there is no difference just because your social reality is in the courtroom. Let’s next look at race which tends unfortunately to be a predominate theme in a lot of high profile trials. There is obliviously still racism in this county today and the courtroom and juries are no exception. The attorney’s always want to work in the best interest of their client therefore when race is an issue within the context of the trial the attorney will want to attempt to pick a jury that will be partial to their client. This is only inappropriate, according to the United States Supreme Court, if race is the sole basis of challenge. However if the lawyer can muster up some explanation in addition to race then it is acceptable and this is easily done. Therefore you can see the issue with actually proving jury selection was based on race solely. All in all it is suggested that jury’s are smarter than attorney’s give them credit for and that they are not easily swayed by the “trial tricks.” This is the opinion that I am adopting so regardless how great we feel our techniques are; in the eyes of the jury it the evidence that persuades not the courtroom actor.