Quote:
Originally posted by QRQ 30
It seems to me that in high profile cases the attorneys attack procedures rather than evidence. What say you attorneys, real and shithouse?
|
In high profile cases, defense attorneys select targets based on their personal views of what is best for the client. Different lawyers have different approaches, including varying the approach based on the circumstances of the particular case.
The range of approaches generally is from scorched earth (attack every target with everything you've got regardless of its value, just to wear down the other side) to focusing entirely on your best defense, whatever it may be. The idea with the latter strategy and those similar to it is that you don't want to lose credibility and waste resources fighting losing battles and making stupid arguments. If you can win the case by making a motion to exclude a key piece of evidence, for example, you can blow everything else off IF you are certain you will win. The problem is that you can never be sure. I always tell my clients that there never is a better than 80% chance of winning something because you have to assume a 20% chance of a judge making the wrong call on a seemingly obvious issue.
Also keep in mind that different lawyers have different skills. Some are really good at getting good settlements, others are good at pretrial battles, other are good in trial, and of course you have combinations. Good lawyers play to their own strengths.
The only thing that upsets me about the OJ case is that no one seems to be looking for the real killer. LOL
Threaded Mode
