The many uses of language make the oral plea in jury trials an instrument for the obstruction of justice. For a lawyer to say to a jury, “Look at my client, you can see he is formidable, if you find him guilty, he may seek revenge,” would be an unmistakable attempt to intimidate a jury. But a lawyer can achieve the same effect (and in my experience in the jury box has done so) by saying, “Take a good look at my client, I hope you will not allow his formidable appearance to intimidate you.” By broaching the issue, the lawyer is only veiling his threat. He is attempting intimidation no less than in the former case; though because of the way he is putting it, he is less likely to incite an objection.
But suppose an objection is sustained. The judge can only ask the jury to forget the disapproved implication, which would be at least as easy as bulldogging an elephant.
This obstruction of justice could be prevented by using written pleas purged previously of all emotional suasion by the opposing lawyer under the supervision of the presiding judge. Each juror should be given a copy of the please in their final form along with discretionary advice and time for study before the trial. The trial should consist of group discussion of the pleas by the jury.
Dean Sparks
Lucerne
