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
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.
In my experience, if you have a bad case, even a great lawyer is unlikely to win it for you. But it’s relatively easy for a bad lawyer to lose a good case. So assuming the other side has a good lawyer, you want to have a good one too.
In my experience, if you have a bad case, even a great lawyer is unlikely to win it for you. But it’s relatively easy for a bad lawyer to lose a good case. So assuming the other side has a good lawyer, you want to have a good one too.
In my experience, if you have a bad case, even a great lawyer is unlikely to win it for you. But it’s relatively easy for a bad lawyer to lose a good case. So assuming the other side has a good lawyer, you want to have a good one too.
A skilled lawyer is often better able to read the jury and adapt arguments to better influence them, and probably more frequently better able to time the most favorable offer that the prosecutor will accept.
A skilled lawyer is often better able to read the jury and adapt arguments to better influence them, and probably more frequently better able to time the most favorable offer that the prosecutor will accept.
A skilled lawyer is often better able to read the jury and adapt arguments to better influence them, and probably more frequently better able to time the most favorable offer that the prosecutor will accept.
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.
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.
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