LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR CLIENT’S CASE
HANDLE CELEBRITY CLIENT CAREFULLY
USE HUMOUR ONLY IF YOU CAN HANDLE
LEAVE EMOTIONS IN COURTROOM ITSELF

In the chapter - ‘Saving Hip-Hop Icon Sean “Puffy” Combs’, Goldberg tells us about the great Hip-Hop singer, writer, record producer and actor Sean “Puffy” Combs who was Jay’s client. During his career Sean would continue to have run-ins with police and other authorities.In 1997 Detectives from Los Angeles came to Goldberg’s office to question Sean “puffy”, to ascertain whether he had any knowledge of the people involved in the murders of ‘Tupac Shakur’ - a highly successful American hip-hop rapper and actor and another hip-hop singer Christopher Wallace also known as ‘Biggie smalls’. Tupac was killed in Las Vegas on September 7,1996 whereas Biggie Smalls was assassinated in Los angels on March 9,1997. Sean “Puffy” Combs spoke to detectives in Goldberg’s office, clearly stating that he knew nothing about who was responsible for either of their deaths. Inspite of this he was subpoenaed before federal Grand jury in Washington D.C. and Goldberg accompanied him. In this regard Goldberg says, “Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot discuss what Sean asked me, but there is no question in my mind that he had no knowledge of who committed the murders of either man.There are times as an attorney when you know everything about your client, and there are times you know very little.There are times when a client will plead innocence, and other times when he is simply looking for you to limit potential punishment he will receive”.

Thus in my opinion Goldberg suggests that as a lawyer you need to dig your own information and not necessarily always rely on your client’s version. Often having connections in the investigative department at times helps you to dig authentic information about your client’s actions that are often questioned in the court because overtime your client may not tell you the truth or the dark side of his case.That is why criminal lawyers should have ‘good’ connections in the investigative department at various levels.

Jay Goldberg’s another client who had worldwide acclaim was Miles Davis, one of the greatest singers. In the chapter - ‘Helping Miles Davis Stand On His Own Two Feet’, Goldberg recalls that “Everytime I represented Miles, he could have easily gone to jail, but he didn't because of what he was. Every judge knew him. Every judge loved him.And every judge gave him a break. They felt sorry for him and knew that prison would break him.Miles like many drug addicts, was a good man with a serious problem. The judges sensed that and always gave him a pass”. Goldberg further adds, “As an attorney ,I do sometimes say enough is enough to my clients who refuse to help themselves, but I always try to keep in mind what addiction is, as I witnessed its grip on my father in the form of gambling throughout my childhood. To me, addiction is like being covered in metal and standing before a magnet. It pulls you, and you have no choice but to succumb to that force, a force that can only be broken through outside intervention”.

Thus Jay Goldberg refers to high-profile clients having larger than life images who have an impact and kind of connect with society and such clients do enjoy a kind of privilege in the court room. But I feel its always not the case and a lawyer must know that a highly placed or a celebrity client having a larger than life image has an equal number of sympathisers as well as haters. So its necessary for a lawyer to tread very cautiously when one is representing such clients.

While talking about his defence of Bess Myerson, the first Jewish Miss America, Jay Goldberg tells us in the chapter, ‘Miss America,Her Consort,And A Supreme Court of Justice On Criminal Trial’, how he used humour to succeed in that case.He says ,”Humour can often be appealing, provided the lawyer has the talent to deliver it, and it is appropriate to the occasion”. He further adds, “ As I look back at the case, there were so many memorable moments, but it was the humour that stood out and won the case, especially the summation”. Adding further that “Socretes wrote “know thyself”, an aphorism that must be a guiding principle for the lawyer who intends to use humour.Many attorneys think they are funny based on the reactions they receive in social settings. But do they have the skill to be able to carry this trait of humour into the courtroom? Do they have the requisite insight? Some do, some do not. And not all cases are ripe for humour.But many are, at least at some point during trial”.

In simple words Jay Goldberg tells us to use humour as an effective tool in the courtroom. But his advice is first know yourself whether you are capable to handle this tool & whether your client will benefit by such action and of course you must gauge whether there is an apt occasion and case to use humour at all. We have often seen that in a tense courtroom when lawyers are fighting tooth and nail for their clients it is humour that helps to cool down tempers and sometimes score a point too.

Goldberg goes on to suggest something very significant which every lawyer could try to pursue. Most lawyers fight their client’s cases vehemently and many times they carry their emotions even outside the courtroom too. Goldberg says, “As an attorney, it can be difficult sometimes just to be in the same room with your opponent because of how strongly you believe in your client’s case and because of tactics your opponent may use to try to win. I am not saying that after a case you go out to dinner with your opponent, or that you should even speak to him or her. But do your best to leave your emotions behind when its over. The decision belongs to the jury or judge. As long as you know you put forth the best effort possible for your client, there is nothing more you can do”.

Personally,I have seen this happen within and outside courtrooms as well. Lawyers sometimes forget that their opponent lawyer in the courtroom is just representing their client’s case and nothing more. They carry forward the grudge with their opposing lawyer beyond the courtroom if they lose a case. Goldberg’s suggestion that lawyers must leave their emotions behind in the courtroom itself is very appropriate. This approach will aid a lawyer to look at the next challenge more objectively and of course, with a free mind.

Writer, Rajiv Chavan, is a Senior Advocate & Former President, Advocates' association of Westren India (2013-2015 & 2015-2018)