By Samantha Levin
Ex Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi were recently found not guilty on all charges. During her closing argument, Susan Brune, lead defense attorney for Tannin, began to cry. “Send Matt home to his family,” Brune stated. Shortly after, criticism concerning the defense attorney’s emotional closing flooded the news reports. The reports surrounding Brune’s closing were not negative. They were more about the shock of witnessing such emotion in a court room.
Our legal system expects people to leave their emotions at home. This is strange because people come to court at their most vulnerable. Yet the judge does not want the emotional neutrality of his court room to be disturbed. He or she instructs the jury that emotional outburst by attorneys and witnesses can have no weight in their findings of fact. The judge is essentially telling the jury to not behave like humans, to be emotionally dishonest.
Emotions fall into the world of subjectivity. Our legal system prides itself on maintaining objectivity in order to provide a fair trial. For example, there is the reasonable person test which sets the standard of legal responsibility in every sphere of the law. Therefore, we don’t have the duty to rescue because most people are bystanders and would not risk the effects of rescue. But how can a trial be fair if it’s dishonest? We should not concern ourselves with whether or not Brune’s display of emotion affected the jurors or not. Of course it had some affect on the jury. However, this emotional impact should not be banned from our court rooms. Yes, emotions are subjective. But subjectivity should not mean that there’s a mistrial.
Perhaps the reason why the news articles did not negatively criticize Brune is because her emotions were genuine and right. They were not premeditated. People cry out of impulse. In addition, criminal trials have great affects on a person’s life. Whether or not the jurors want to be reminded, Tannin has a family. His life will be greatly affected by their decision. Is it right to hide these moral facets to a criminal trial?
Emotional responses are due to a moral righteousness, a characteristic that should be commended. Lawyers should be allowed to get emotional regardless of whether they are in court or in the privacy of their own homes. People should be free to exhibit their moral instincts. We want people to be engaged in a moral conversation at all times. There should be no split between the moral and the legal.
Nonetheless, no one knows what happens during jury deliberations. Perhaps the jurors did honor Brune’s emotional outburst and allowed it to affect their final decision. In addition, the jurors do not have to give a reason for their verdict. Therefore, the jury could have taken the attorney’s emotions into consideration and the judge would never know. I believe that the secrecy of the juror deliberation acts somewhat as a check on the lack of emotion in the legal system. However, our legal system should put so much pressure on objectivity and deny the jurors the choice to take emotions into account in their decision making.
