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
The evidence is not the same.
All evidence has to be introduced by witnesses, and this is done by having lawyers ask them questions.
So, for example, say there’s a photograph which you think shows –objectively and indisputably– that something happened. You think lawyers can’t change the content of the photo, right? Well, you’d be wrong about that.
The law requires that a “foundation” be laid for introducing the photo into evidence and showing it to the jury. “Foundation” means who took the photo, when it was taken, and very important in this day of digital images, who had custody of the photo from the time it was taken until it was shown to the jury (which is the main way you address questions whether the photo might have been manipulated or altered). All these questions get asked before the jury is allow to see your photo, and so before they even see it, the lawyer has planted in their minds questions and impressions which will color how the view the photo … again, before they even see it.
All that can add up to “reasonable doubt” in a criminal case. So, for example, this is how Johnny Cochran absolutely destroyed the LAPD’s case against O.J. Simpson.
Latest Answers