This is a very common attitude among losing lawyers.
They have utter contempt for the ordinary people that show up for jury duty, I've heard it in all sorts of tony locations.
But what I got taught in law school is that you don't win unless you make your case: state the law, state the elements of proof required, state the evidence that supports each element, and then explain how it all fits together.
This task is not all that easy, especially if someone is prejudiced. Winning lawyers learn how to put aside their prejudices, and then frankly address the weaknesses in their cases. There are always weaknesses and questions to be answered. A prejudiced lawyer forgets this reality, and lazily demands that people see it his way.
I watched friends of mine from a big law firm try a case they swore was a layup. I went to the courthouse to watch a supposedly wonderful lawyer "destroy" the owner of a company on cross examination. I came away thinking the owner might be a truthful person dealing with an unreasonable shark.
The jury went with the owner. I asked one of my friends why, and he said, "Well, we polled the jury, and they found every weakness in our case."
This is a very common attitude among losing lawyers.
They have utter contempt for the ordinary people that show up for jury duty, I've heard it in all sorts of tony locations.
But what I got taught in law school is that you don't win unless you make your case: state the law, state the elements of proof required, state the evidence that supports each element, and then explain how it all fits together.
This task is not all that easy, especially if someone is prejudiced. Winning lawyers learn how to put aside their prejudices, and then frankly address the weaknesses in their cases. There are always weaknesses and questions to be answered. A prejudiced lawyer forgets this reality, and lazily demands that people see it his way.
I watched friends of mine from a big law firm try a case they swore was a layup. I went to the courthouse to watch a supposedly wonderful lawyer "destroy" the owner of a company on cross examination. I came away thinking the owner might be a truthful person dealing with an unreasonable shark.
The jury went with the owner. I asked one of my friends why, and he said, "Well, we polled the jury, and they found every weakness in our case."
Juries will do that.