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
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.
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.
The good lawyers I’ve met. The justice system seemed like a high school. The “good” ones just seemed like the popular kid. Having Judges and prosecutors like you seemed the only thing that mattered.
The good lawyers I’ve met. The justice system seemed like a high school. The “good” ones just seemed like the popular kid. Having Judges and prosecutors like you seemed the only thing that mattered.
The good lawyers I’ve met. The justice system seemed like a high school. The “good” ones just seemed like the popular kid. Having Judges and prosecutors like you seemed the only thing that mattered.
1 person looking through the evidence, reading up past cases, and reviewing written law is very tiring, and he might not be through.
the renowned lawyer typically is in a group or has his own firm, where they have a massive resource at their disposal. not to mention more experience in how to sway a case.
1 person looking through the evidence, reading up past cases, and reviewing written law is very tiring, and he might not be through.
the renowned lawyer typically is in a group or has his own firm, where they have a massive resource at their disposal. not to mention more experience in how to sway a case.
1 person looking through the evidence, reading up past cases, and reviewing written law is very tiring, and he might not be through.
the renowned lawyer typically is in a group or has his own firm, where they have a massive resource at their disposal. not to mention more experience in how to sway a case.
Evidence is the same, but interpretation of the evidence is not. Not to mention they have teams on that case unlike a public defender which is probably weighed down on many cases.
Evidence is the same, but interpretation of the evidence is not. Not to mention they have teams on that case unlike a public defender which is probably weighed down on many cases.
Latest Answers