In a court case where the facts are not in dispute, why is it still necessary to have a really good lawyer? If a judge is aware that a specific defense applies, do they really need the defense to explicitly raise it?

Question

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

Answer 1

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.