Courting humour to make a case

Smiling in a courtroom can become as complex and controversial as the smile of Mona Lisa. Ryan A Malphurs studied smiles and laughter in the US Supreme Court. His study titled, ‘A study of laughter at the level of a Supreme Court’, found three primary theories of laughter: superiority, incongruity and relief. Examining more than 9,000 instances of laughter witnessed at the courts in the US since 1955, Jacobi and Sag found that the judges of the Supreme Court use courtroom humour as a tool of advocacy and a sign of their power and status.

A smile can indicate a bias, an air of superiority, sarcasm, an indication, no remorse attitude, disrespect etc, in a courtroom setting. Certain questions are raised like, whether a judge is allowed to smile, whether the accused who smiles shows no repentance, whether the lawyer smiling at the judge indicates a bias or a pre-agreement and much more. Some lawyers feel that a smile is an advantageous add-on and may calm the tense environment of a courtroom.

Referring to a case of Washtenaw County Courtroom, Danta Wright, a teenager who admitted murdering an Ann Arbor school student, sat smiling and nearly laughing as the victim’s family read the impact statements before the court. The judge, annoyed at the teen’s behaviour, interrupted and said, “Watching you sit there, smile, laugh, shake your head like this was no big deal — I’m very tempted to just say, I am not going to accept this sentencing agreement and we’ll go to trial.” Wright’s lawyer apologised stating that the teen suffers from an emotional issue and that some people “display fear by smiling”.

Recently, a matter where actress Juhi Chawla was appearing in a 5G case, was interrupted by a person who started singing songs from her movies. The lawyer made a statement in a lighter vein, saying that ‘5G radiation has started showing its impact on this person’. There was silence and the joke was neither responded nor appreciated by their lordships, who felt that a mockery of the proceedings was made out.

This situation raises an interesting query into the aspect whether body language is an essential component and as important as a testimony. Can demeanour and eloquence be given the same rating and emphasis? Whether the law schools should mandate classes on body language and personality development?

In a case heard by the Madras High Court, the plaintiff started raising a hue and cry. The judge asked the plaintiff’s counsel what his client’s problem was. The counsel stated that his client had misplaced a valuable jacket. The judge replied, “Remind your client that many persons have lost their suits itself and that till now, your client has lost only his jacket. Ask him to wait for some more time.”

English scholar Roger Ascham had said, “To laugh, to lie, to flatter, to face: four ways in court to win man’s grace.”