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

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.