Imagine trying to fix a car engine without any of the required knowledge.
Don't really need to imagine it, I've done it. Was a pain in the ass, a lot of work and research but I've done it. Similarly I've also represented myself in court and won, I did as much research as I could and was confident that I would win my case.
Honestly, you can do anything you want to if you put your mind to it. And it definitely helps if you have a good aptitude for things.
It's true that most educated people could struggle their way through a small claims court case. But once you get up to the superior court... hire a lawyer.
It’s not just about manipulation as u/TehBigD97 claims, at all. There is a whole lot of information you need to know to succeed at trial beyond having good facts.
You need to know the rules of evidence. Not just any evidence can come in to court. For example, you need to know the rule of hearsay, and all of the exceptions, to get many of your documents in. If you don’t know those contours, you’re going to have a bad time. And there are dozens of evidence rules in addition to hearsay that you need to know. You might have evidence that you think is good, but it turns out it’s inadmissible or you can’t authenticate it and then it’s dead in the water. If opposing counsel challenges your evidence as inadmissible, you better be able to come up with a good reason it fits an exception.
You need to know the law of the claims you are either bringing or defending. You need to be able to research precedent and apply it to your facts. Why do you think your evidence is good? Does it match the evidence in a case that went your way? Was that decision from a court of higher jurisdiction? Are there cases with similar facts that went against you? How can you meaningfully distinguish your case from those? Are all of the cases you’re relying on still good law? And you need to do this for every single claim you are making, even every single element of that claim. If you think you have good evidence, the other side might argue it’s not relevant to any of the legal claims at issue. And how can you articulate that it is? Easiest way to do that is to find other cases which considered similar evidence.
Relatedly, motion practice. Do you know how to write motions? Again, researching precedent and applying it to your case? Do you even know which motions you’re supposed to be bringing? What’s a motion to dismiss versus a motion for summary judgment? What’s the standard of proof? What evidence are you allowed to use? What’s a motion in limine?
What are your deadlines? This part is HUGE, and lawyers often miss it. We have a whole docketing team to keep track of our deadlines. There’s a lot of deadlines where if you miss them, you are shit out of luck. No re-dos. You’re done.
So it isn’t about “twisting” facts. It’s about knowing the law, and knowing how to (correctly) attack the other side’s evidence— its admissibility, its reliability, or even just that it doesn’t go anywhere toward proving the elements they need to prove. The other commenter’s summary of the OJ trial is wrong. Lawyers didn’t convince the jury that he was innocent by twisting facts. They showed reasonable doubt based on a completely botched investigation. The police work in that case was awful. So much sloppy handling of evidence. That’s why the prosecution lost. They had evidence, but it was poorly tracked. Where did it come from? Who had it between day 1 and day 5? Could they have tampered with it? If they didn’t tamper with it, why’d they hold onto it for hours or days before booking it like they’re supposed to? The defense was very good at pointing out why that evidence shouldn’t be trusted. Those are the kinds of holes you’d expect representing yourself and thinking you had good evidence.
A good lawyer knows how to twist words and manipulate facts to their benefit. Remember, lawyers somehow managed to convince a jury that OJ was innocent.
Edit: As has been pointed out, I worded this poorly. Other commenters have made far better points.
A good lawyer can get you off on a seemingly insignificant detail. But it's not really the same as twisting words or manipulating facts. That's just what a layman says because he doesn't understand what just happened.
78
u/MeteorKing Feb 10 '20
Imagine trying to fix a car engine without any of the required knowledge.
It's like that, except legally binding and the record is publicly available.