10 ms·
I don't know how you can know that. In the US, some lawyers definitely work hard to remain on the good side of judges. I have dabbled in some areas of law that
by pnw_hazor 6y ago
I don't know how you can know that. In the US, some lawyers definitely work hard to remain on the good side of judges.
I have dabbled in some areas of law that are 'bubbles' with specialized lawyers and no juries (family law, bankruptcy, landlord-tenant). It doesn't take much to disrupt them with conventional good lawyering because most people in those practices areas, judges included, are in a rut.
Criminal law has some similar problems mostly at the low level. But it is usually the prosecutors and the defense attorneys colluding to quickly pass cases through the system. The last thing most judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys want is a jury trial because then they would have to do their job.
- k__ 6y agoI see. From the outside I had the impression successful defense attorneys would try to convince the jury by confusing them, which seems quite easy because the jury usually isn't educated in law.
- pnw_hazor 6y agoIn weak cases, lawyers from either side will try to confuse some of the issues. But the rules of evidence, criminal trial procedure rules, and the presiding judge can make this difficult. Also, even though good research about jury deliberation is limited because they are conducted in secret, I recall (from memory) that research shows juries are pretty good at detecting when someone is trying to deceive them. Further, in trials, the opposing party gets a say in the matter too. If one side says something deceptive or deliberately confusing, competent lawyers for the other side will point this out and attempt to correct the record, possibly turning the jury and the judge against the deceptive lawyer.