The courtroom as theatre

The courtroom, often portrayed as a bastion of rational deliberation and truth-seeking, functions just as much as a stage – where performance, charisma, and rhetorical prowess can overshadow the pursuit of justice.

A striking example of this performative nature appears in The Simpsons episode, “Marge in Chains” (Season 4, Episode 21). The prosecution, exuding confidence, declares: “Your Honour, I’m so confident of Marge Simpson’s guilt that I can waste the court’s time rating the super hunks.” Rather than objecting, Marge’s hapless defence attorney, Lionel Hutz, mesmerised by the spectacle, mutters: “Ooh, he’s gonna win.”

The scene, while comedic, encapsulates a troubling reality – confidence, persuasion, and theatrical delivery often shape judicial outcomes more than facts and evidence. The same principle applies to real-world trials, where strategic performance can tilt the scales of justice. The celebrated A Few Good Men (1992) courtroom showdown between Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Colonel Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson) demonstrates this vividly. The climactic “You can’t handle the truth!” moment is less about legal precision and more about provoking Jessup into an emotional outburst – a calculated performance that seals the case.

VIEW ALL

Theatrics over truth: A historical and psychological perspective

Legal trials as theatrical displays

Courtroom advocacy has always been intertwined with performance. From the rhetorical flourishes of classical orators like Cicero and Aristotle to the grandstanding of modern trial lawyers, legal battles have always relied on the power of persuasion as much as on the rule of law.

The “halo effect” (Thorndike, 1920) explains why a lawyer’s confidence, tone, and physical presentation can shape perceptions of their argument’s strength. A confident attorney appears competent, regardless of the quality of their reasoning. Meanwhile, the Pygmalion effect suggests that when a lawyer exudes an air of victory, judges and jurors may unconsciously perceive them as the winning side, reinforcing their perceived dominance.

Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) introduces the concept of System 1 versus System 2 thinking, where jurors rely on fast, intuitive judgments rather than slow, rational analysis. This cognitive shortcut makes them more susceptible to emotional appeals, grandstanding, and persuasive but flawed arguments.

The power of persuasion: What really wins a case?

The confidence game

Returning to The Simpsons, the prosecutor’s brazen self-assurance is a classic example of confidence shaping perceived truth. In real-world trials, high-profile attorneys like Johnnie Cochran in the O.J. Simpson case demonstrated how catchphrases (“If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”) and showmanship can dismantle seemingly insurmountable evidence.

Studies show that jurors are more likely to believe an argument when delivered with confidence, even if the underlying facts are weak. Confidence is often mistaken for credibility, making it a powerful tool in the courtroom.

The role of trial consultants

Legal teams employ trial consultants to craft narratives and even select jurors predisposed to their arguments. This strategic shaping of perception underscores how persuasion, not truth, often determines legal outcomes.

The spectacle of justice: High-profile cases as public theatre

Trials in the media spotlight

High-profile cases like Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard and Casey Anthony illustrate how legal battles become entertainment. Media coverage amplifies the performative aspects of trials, with legal teams crafting statements as much for public perception as for the court.

Televised trials, social media commentary, and real-time analysis by legal pundits create an environment where public opinion can shape legal narratives before verdicts are even delivered.

The illusion of objectivity

The widespread belief that justice is purely about facts and logic is undercut by the theatrical elements embedded in the legal system. High-profile trials reveal how justice can be shaped by narrative control, selective evidence presentation, and media framing.

The implications: Justice, manipulation, and ethical concerns

• If legal outcomes depend on performance rather than facts, does justice remain impartial?
• How do we reconcile the necessity of persuasion in law with the ethical obligation to uphold truth?
• Should courtroom theatrics be mitigated, or are they an inevitable aspect of legal advocacy?

The presence of these questions highlights the uneasy intersection of law and performance. While legal arguments should ideally rest on objective evidence, the reality is that persuasion is an indispensable component of advocacy.

The courtroom as a stage

The courtroom, as illustrated by The Simpsons and real-world trials, is not merely a forum for justice but a stage where legal actors perform for their audience. From Lionel Hutz’s awe-struck deference to a confident prosecutor to Colonel Jessup’s dramatic admission in A Few Good Men, these moments reflect a broader truth: justice is often shaped not by cold, hard evidence but by the ability to control the narrative.

As the legal system continues to evolve, recognising the performative nature of trials is crucial for addressing biases, ensuring fairness, and preserving the integrity of justice. If we acknowledge that persuasion is an inherent part of the legal process, we must also remain vigilant about its consequences – lest the best performer, rather than the most truthful advocate, always wins the case.

Rebecca Ward is an MBA-qualified management consultant with a focus on mental health. She is the managing director of Barrister’s Health, which supports the legal profession through management consulting and psychotherapy. Barristers’ Health was founded in memory of her brother, Steven Ward, LLB.