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

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.