Eli5 how does an renowned lawyer make such a difference in a trial

350 views

Essentially, the title says it all. How do some lawyers make such a difference in the outcome of a trial when defending clients accused of crimes? The evidence is the same regardless of the lawyer, so it doesn’t seem like they should have that much power over the verdict.

In: 32

48 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

I’ve read a few answers, most are blatantly lying to make it seem like lawyers are some highly skilled super intelligent people.

The truth:

Judges are elected and extremely fallible.

Why does this impact things so heavily? Well if a lawyer is known to represent wealthy clients, guess who can make donations to the Judge on their re-election campaign. Do you think those clients are going to face the same severity on their sentences? Not a chance.

Please remember modern law essentially stems from Judaism, priests debating tiny technicalities in their book of worship so they could excuse one behavior or another. That’s what our modern law is. Sure there are precedents set that prevent -some- gross abuse of power, but for the really serious stuff it’s mostly up for interpretation. Your highly paid lawyer will not only have excellent networks to grease his close friends wheels, but can also frame the interpretation correctly.

So really you’re paying for connections to cheat the Justice system, primarily. Some extra goes to them putting on a show and knowing the ins and outs, however alot of high profile lawyers know exactly what the judge wants to hear prior to the trial, so they stick with what works.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I’ve read a few answers, most are blatantly lying to make it seem like lawyers are some highly skilled super intelligent people.

The truth:

Judges are elected and extremely fallible.

Why does this impact things so heavily? Well if a lawyer is known to represent wealthy clients, guess who can make donations to the Judge on their re-election campaign. Do you think those clients are going to face the same severity on their sentences? Not a chance.

Please remember modern law essentially stems from Judaism, priests debating tiny technicalities in their book of worship so they could excuse one behavior or another. That’s what our modern law is. Sure there are precedents set that prevent -some- gross abuse of power, but for the really serious stuff it’s mostly up for interpretation. Your highly paid lawyer will not only have excellent networks to grease his close friends wheels, but can also frame the interpretation correctly.

So really you’re paying for connections to cheat the Justice system, primarily. Some extra goes to them putting on a show and knowing the ins and outs, however alot of high profile lawyers know exactly what the judge wants to hear prior to the trial, so they stick with what works.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I’ve read a few answers, most are blatantly lying to make it seem like lawyers are some highly skilled super intelligent people.

The truth:

Judges are elected and extremely fallible.

Why does this impact things so heavily? Well if a lawyer is known to represent wealthy clients, guess who can make donations to the Judge on their re-election campaign. Do you think those clients are going to face the same severity on their sentences? Not a chance.

Please remember modern law essentially stems from Judaism, priests debating tiny technicalities in their book of worship so they could excuse one behavior or another. That’s what our modern law is. Sure there are precedents set that prevent -some- gross abuse of power, but for the really serious stuff it’s mostly up for interpretation. Your highly paid lawyer will not only have excellent networks to grease his close friends wheels, but can also frame the interpretation correctly.

So really you’re paying for connections to cheat the Justice system, primarily. Some extra goes to them putting on a show and knowing the ins and outs, however alot of high profile lawyers know exactly what the judge wants to hear prior to the trial, so they stick with what works.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I’m late to this, but speaking as a trial lawyer in Canada: law is not about the truth. Law is theatre. Law is persuasion. As a lawyer, your job is to persuade the judge (or jury). A dry retelling of your evidence will rarely get that done, no matter how good your evidence is. Your most important job is to give a performance (remember, law = theatre). Some lawyers are terrible at that, but the good ones really set themselves apart.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I’m late to this, but speaking as a trial lawyer in Canada: law is not about the truth. Law is theatre. Law is persuasion. As a lawyer, your job is to persuade the judge (or jury). A dry retelling of your evidence will rarely get that done, no matter how good your evidence is. Your most important job is to give a performance (remember, law = theatre). Some lawyers are terrible at that, but the good ones really set themselves apart.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I’m late to this, but speaking as a trial lawyer in Canada: law is not about the truth. Law is theatre. Law is persuasion. As a lawyer, your job is to persuade the judge (or jury). A dry retelling of your evidence will rarely get that done, no matter how good your evidence is. Your most important job is to give a performance (remember, law = theatre). Some lawyers are terrible at that, but the good ones really set themselves apart.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Kind of like asking what makes someone a good salesperson. Two salespeople go out, they offer the same product, but one sells, the other does not.

There are lots of things that can go into it. Being persuasive in helping people understand your client’s perspective is a big one, plus a lot of what others here have said – resources, reputation, ability to speak with authority, etc.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Kind of like asking what makes someone a good salesperson. Two salespeople go out, they offer the same product, but one sells, the other does not.

There are lots of things that can go into it. Being persuasive in helping people understand your client’s perspective is a big one, plus a lot of what others here have said – resources, reputation, ability to speak with authority, etc.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Kind of like asking what makes someone a good salesperson. Two salespeople go out, they offer the same product, but one sells, the other does not.

There are lots of things that can go into it. Being persuasive in helping people understand your client’s perspective is a big one, plus a lot of what others here have said – resources, reputation, ability to speak with authority, etc.

Anonymous 0 Comments

Because litigating is a skill and an ART. It’s not objective. It’s pulling out a story and telling it well. Kinda like anybody with an iPhone can make a movie, but Steven Spielberg’s iPhone movie is going to be better than yours: he knows how to aim the camera, which light to use, who the best actor would be, when to let the actor ad lib and when to insist they stick to a script.

And, some of how evidence gets in is technical. You have to know the steps to get it in, if you don’t, it doesn’t come in. Same with keeping it out.

And you got to know how to “pick” a good jury. Mainly it’s stereotypes.

For instance, as a defense lawyer, if I’ve got a good case I want jurors who I think will pay attention and not be afraid to disbelieve a police officer or who won’t be swayed by a crying kid on the stand, in that case I’m going to pick an engineer or an architect over a housewife or a teacher, based on my assumption that engineers and architects are practical, evidence based people who are going to expect the evidence to “add up” they are also likely to speak up and say no; they do it frequently. The housewife, on the other hand, might be used to being told what to do and trusting “authority” figures so she might be more likely to believe the police (especially since most as men like her husband) and go along to get along; she might not hold a NG verdict because she’s used to compromising.

On the other hand, if I’ve got a bad case and there’s lots of evidence against my client, I defiantly don’t want an engineer. I want the housewife who might not understand how the breathalyzer works. I might want the kindergarten teacher who doesn’t get fazed when children cry or who knows that kids lie. If my client is black and it’s a violent crime in the city, I don’t want the housewife who lives in a gated community who’s scared of her won shadow, I want the hip artsy kid who lives in a studio downtown. If my client is white and “normal” I do want the housewife who lives in the gated community cause my client reminds her of her son/neighbor/church members who would never do that type of thing.

Like I said, stereotypes. Not true for everybody but that’s all you got. Also, body language. Who’s rolling their eyes, fidgety, falling asleep, etc. As a defense attorney I never want the people who are silent through the entire process, I feel like they’re going to be bulldozed in the jury room; they might notice something but they’re not going to speak up (just like they didn’t speak up during jury selection) or worse, they don’t give a damn; they’re going to convict your client so they can make it home by 5. Also, don’t want the too boisterous person, if s/he is against you they’re going to bulldoze the people who might be for you.