At trial there are a number of things I get you really do need a lawyer for- you will need a lawyer to handle procedural steps like getting evidence admitted (or dismissed) and the process for jury selection, a good persuasive lawyer can make convincing arguments to establish a different set of facts or perspective to sway a jury.
However, there are times when the facts are not in dispute and the case boils down to the lawyers making arguments as to whether the defendant broke the law based on those facts. Wouldn’t the judge normally know at this point? If the judge knows a prosecution is bullshit, but the defense failed to identify and explicitly raise in court why and how the prosecution is bullshit, wouldn’t it be really unjust for the Judge to still send the defendant to prison?
In: Other
Sometimes the facts aren’t in dispute but the evidence was obtained illegally and can’t be used against you. You wouldn’t know your rights were violated but a lawyer could get the damning evidence excluded.
A lawyer could also help you get a better plea deal if that’s the way you need to go.
If the facts are not in dispute, the first thing the side that has the upper hand would do (in the US) is apply for what is called ‘summary judgement’.
Think of this as a expediated way to get a case done. If the facts are not disupted, you say so and ask for summary judgement, that means, everyone agrees on the facts, so theres no need to go to court, the judge can simply make the decision based on the facts of the case that have been presented in writing and evidence. This is very normal. This happens like, all the time. Of course if you think the facts are in your favor, you’d want to do this right away.
If you were on the, lets say, less promising side of that equation, you’d want a good a lawyer as possible to try to make an argument for the judge to reject the ask of summary judgement which if he ruled against you may mean you lose the case, without ever having a courtroom trial.
Arguing mitigating factors is also an important part of a good defence. Often enough, those factors are just a trope, but there may be something genuinely mitigating to an offence that can significantly reduce a sentence.
The judge can’t spend the time interrogating facts and events prior to trial, but a defence attorney can. And, like any profession, not all lawyers are created equal. Finding a highly trained, highly motivated one with a similarly solid team behind them can change everything.
Those are two different questions.
To the second one, yes, you do have to raise defenses. You don’t want the judge guessing that a defense applies. If the defendant didn’t raise it, the judge shouldn’t decide that the defense is meritorious. Maybe it doesn’t have the support the judge thinks it might, or maybe that defense has collateral effects the defendant would rather avoid (e.g., bad publicity, impacts on other cases, etc.). Defendants are allowed to waive defenses, and judges have to respect that decision.
The first is easier: you need a lawyer to show the judge that there are no material facts in dispute. The other side isn’t going to roll over and admit that the undisputed facts are against them. Even if they have no case, they will seek a negotiated settlement rather than the entry of judgment against them.
To your second question, not necessarily. The law is often unclear, so the lawyers point to other cases and statutory interpretation to argue whether the facts amount to a crime.
As to the second question: a good lawyer needs to be aware of the defenses and raise it. A judge can’t do that. For example: all judges and lawyers should be aware that self defense is a defense to a battery charge. But you need an attorney that knows it and that attorney needs to elicit evidence or point to evidence that shows self defense. Otherwise, just being aware of the defense is not enough.
Latest Answers