Gordon Robinson | The essence of psychology

In Apocrypha, our favourite fantasyland where all politicians are friends and Oma D’unn solves political problems by parable, a spotlight was on lawyers.

Chief Prosecutor Pauline Broadback decided to consult Oma after a contentious interview by eminent media practitioner Dittoo Lastname which turned into a social media political standoff. She asked Oma for advice as to how to deflect criticism she was getting from one side of the political divide. Oma told her to get a psychology degree.

She wasn’t following so Oma told her a story about a shy man.

“A very shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the other end. After an hour gathering up his courage he finally goes over to her and asks, tentatively, ‘Um, would you mind if I chatted with you for a while?’

She responds by yelling at the top of her lungs ‘No, I won’t sleep with you tonight!’

By now, the entire bar is staring at them. Naturally, the guy is hopelessly embarrassed and slinks back to his table.

After a few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes. She smiles at him and says, ‘I’m sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, I’m a graduate student in psychology and I’m studying how people respond to embarrassing situations.’

To which he responds at the top of his lungs, ‘What do you mean $200?’”

Pauline still wasn’t catching on so Oma explained that you’re more than your profession. As a lawyer, you don’t always have to apply legal principles to everything. When you’re not in court learn how to read the room.

When Gene Autry and I were upcoming young bridge players, we often played against one of Jamaica’s top pairs, Dudley Boxer and Carl Perkins. Whenever we sat at their table in a tournament, the opening small talk sounded like an Abbott and Costello routine.

Autry: Wha’ppen Perko?

CP: ’Ooo yu a call Perko?

Autry: Oops, wha’ppen Perkins?

CP: Ooo yu a call Perkins?

Autry: Sigh. Wha’ppen Carl?

CP: Ooo yu a call Carl?

We’d simply pass it off a joke and play the first hand. But, looking back, I realize he was serious. He didn’t appreciate young bridge rookies calling him anything other than Mr. Perkins. We never did. Eventually we became great friends. I suppose it could be that experience with Carl Perkins, who I never saw wearing blue suede shoes, that drives my intense dislike, to this day, of hearing anyone call me “Mr. Robinson”. I threaten to show them my birth certificate to prove “Mister” isn’t my first name.

So, I sighed audibly when I heard Jamaica’s former DPP, in response to a query from Dionne Jackson-Miller as to why she’d never appeared in person at the Privy Council but always briefed British Counsel, huff and puff and ask Dionne “Who are you speaking to?” Then she went off on a rant, speaking down to Dionne, who had asked if it was a lack of confidence that caused the avoidance of Privy Council appearances, as “Junior Counsel” while reminding Dionne that she (former DPP) had never seen Dionne in a gang or complex appeal court case.

But former DPP wasn’t in court speaking to a colleague lawyer. She was answering a senior journalist and expert interviewer asking her about her public service. She should’ve read the room and responded with a smidgeon more humility.

In my opinion Dionne was well within the boundaries of appropriate journalistic enquiry to ask former DPP about matters of public interest including a case DPP insisted on prosecuting based on statements in a file despite contradictory DNA evidence. DPP seemed to throw a hissy fit, dismissing all critics of that process as having “not read the file” and insisting she acted based on eyewitness statements “on the file”.

Whenever a young lawyer has the misfortune to find him/herself under my beak (only angels have wings) I insist they read the file BUT that the case is about people not files. They should interview the witnesses critically; visit the locus; and get an understanding of the psychology of the issues. Because, in the practice of law, the most important question that you must NEVER have to ask in cross-examination because you’ve already found out in private is “Why?” Proceeding with a prosecution severely damaging to accused persons’ lives based on traumatized eyewitnesses’ statements when there’s contradictory scientific evidence because you expect everything “to come out in the wash” is questionable at best. So Dionne questioned it.

In my opinion, former DPP’s responses to Dionne’s queries were supercilious narcissistic and rude. This wouldn’t qualify as a successful audition for any future public service post. Dionne dealt calmly and professionally with her tantrums. Some of us need to get over ourselves.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com