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
Lawyers have limited time to present arguments. A trial has a set sequence of phases and things that can occur within each phase. A lawyer has to present the best evidence they can in the time available. They also have to know the rules for when you can present, discuss, or refute each piece of evidence and do so for maximum effect.
You will never have 100% off the evidence/facts available. If you did, there would be no point of a trial.
Latest Answers