The Supreme Court Doesn't Like the Way Lawyers do it on TV and in the Movies

Ask any practicing trial lawyer for thoughts on "fictional" trials -- the ones on TV and in the movies -- and you are likely to hear how unrealistic the portrayals are.  Things, generally, don't happen that neatly, that cleanly, or that dramatically.  There is a large amount of technical work going on during a trial that would bore an audience to tears if forced to sit through it.

But, every so often, a lawyer gets caught up in the moment and channels the inner Perry Mason.  And when that happens, courts generally put a stop to it.  On September 10, the Supreme Court of Georgia announced its decision in Stolte v. Fagan, which stressed the importance of controlling overly dramatic behavior from lawyers.  This was a case of alleged dental malpractice.  During closing argument, the dentist's lawyer referred to the dentist's reputation, years of practice, and various other things having nothing to do with the case, which were designed to create impermissible sympathy for the dentist.  The patient's counsel objected, and the judge told the dentist's counsel to "move on."  The dentist won.

The patient appealed, arguing (among other things, this was not the only issue in the case) that the judge did not do enough to alert the jury that the dentist made an impermissible argument.  The dentist responded that the patient did not try hard enough to get the judge to act.  The Supreme Court stated that "once an objection to improper argument has been sustained, the trial court is required to employ some corrective measure to remedy the harm resulting from the impropriety, even absent a specific request for such a measure."  In other words, once a judge recognizes improper tactics, the judge has to make sure the jury understands that those tactics are improper, to make sure that the jury is not improperly influenced by the TV or movie like dramatics.