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
Renowned lawyers are usually not only good at their job (arguing for their client), but they also have a strong reputation that gives more credence to their arguments.
The evidence presented should be the same, but a good lawyer knows to double check the evidence, try to downplay the more damning stuff, and try to elevate the exonerating evidence.
A defense lawyer, at his most basic, is a debator. His job isn’t just to go where the evidence points, far from it. Often he has to take a piece of damning evidence and convince 12 people to ignore it.
To see what a great defense attorney can do, look at Johnny Cochrane and the OJ Simpson trial. He had OJ try on a pair of blood-drenched leather gloves over a pair of latex gloves in court after making sure OJ didn’t take a medicine that would keep his hands from swelling. Of course, those gloves were not going to fit right there, and it shouldn’t have swayed a jury.
But Johnny was very convincing.
Well, larger lawyers often have access to more resources. They can devote multiple people to researching the case. Finding evidence, witnesses, or just combing through mountains of case law to find some case to support their case. That stuff exists for both sides, but if you have a single lawyer versus the guy that has several lawyers and a small team on interns the latter is just going to be able to churn through more info.
It’s like asking 2 different people to sell you the same pen. They’re both trying to convince you why you should trust them and buy it from them. The more confident speaking one who knows how to manipulate the evidence to their advantage is more likely to win over the judge / jury.
Renowned lawyers are usually not only good at their job (arguing for their client), but they also have a strong reputation that gives more credence to their arguments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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