"Every trial lawyer eventually gets that case. The one with no clean story. No righteous client. No obvious villain on the other side. No theme that fits neatly on a PowerPoint slide or a jury consultant's whiteboard. The facts are messy. The law is worse. Your client did some things right and some things that make you wince. The jury is going to dislike someone, and there's a non-zero chance it could be your client."
"The First Mistake: Pretending This Is a "Normal" Case Most lawyers lose tough cases long before voir dire because they treat them as they would any other case. They over-argue. They over-explain. They over-defend. They tell the jury, "My client did nothing wrong," when the jury already knows that's not true. In needle-threading cases, absolutism kills you. Jurors are remarkably tolerant of imperfection. They are deeply suspicious of denial."
"Pick the Hill You're Willing to Die On - And Abandon the Rest I once knew a seasoned defense trial lawyer who described himself as a mercenary dropped into the jungle. He wasn't there to debate philosophy or explain corporate culture. He was there to seize one hill, blow up the target, and get out. That mentality matters most in tough cases."
Some trials present clients with no clean story, no righteous client, and no obvious villain; facts are messy and the law unfavorable. Such cases cannot be won by theatrics, volume, or brute force. Winning requires threading the needle by defining where responsibility ends rather than insisting on perfection. Absolutism and denial alienate jurors who tolerate imperfection. Defense strategy requires selecting a single pivotal issue to contest, abandoning efforts to defend every flaw, and narrowing the case ruthlessly around the hill worth fighting to secure a verdict.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]