High profile cases are atypical in some ways but the salient difference is that I can point you to an example and you can watch it. I can’t really point you at

High profile cases are atypical in some ways but the salient difference is that I can point you to an example and you can watch it. I can’t really point you at examples in your county courthouse but it is definitely great that you’ve seen some courtroom activity. It’s unfortunate though, that you’ve taken away some conclusions that aren’t quite apt. The judge is the opposite of the fact finder. The judge is the law finder. The jury is the fact finder (unless you’ve forfeited your right to a jury and are undertaking a bench trial). But I get the general idea of the question and I can answer it in the context of attorneys influencing any party this way: An attorney should not alter the final disposition of a dispute, meaning that if a person is guilty or liable and the attorney’s actions cause an outcome where they “get away with it” we can all agree the system failed. Lawyers are there so your rights don’t get trampled, so you don’t give anything away, and because they understand the terrain over which the parties will negotiate. Sure, judges probably prefer drinking beers with lawyers than with indigent sovcits. But unlike a hyena presented with a decaying carcass, the judges I’ve encountered can suspend their baser instincts for a few minutes at a time in order to /do their job/ and part of that job is respecting the Constitution and the rights of the litigants.