I stuck with it through college, and the Federal Rules of Evidence are burned into my brain as well. :) >I suspect that's the sort of thing that's an annoying

I stuck with it through college, and the Federal Rules of Evidence are burned into my brain as well. :) >I suspect that's the sort of thing that's an annoying waste of time to trained professionals :-) In mock trial, we once had a Brooklyn criminal court trial judge preside over the proceedings, and she would overrule objections before even hearing their full basis, which I understand is not uncommon in certain jurisdictions, which means on-the-spot research is often not even possible. Representing yourself is hard. But I certainly think a person should be active in his or her own defense. By all means, research precedent, examine statutes, and dig into regulations. Even professionals miss things. And even the best attorneys have multiple cases that split their attention, and far less of a stake in the outcome than the accused. For the lawyer it's a job. For the defendant it's his life. But when the rubber meets the road a professional attorney is the way to go in a court proceeding. Even if you are in fact so good that your attorney is only repeating an argument you constructed, they will do so bringing a vast amount of experience to bear.