Why do defence attorneys never want the jury to see their clients in prison clothes?
82230
It can create bias. Jurors viewing a defendant in prison garb will assume guilt and most people (although they may not confess to it) have difficulty getting past visual cues like that. Imagine if you saw a distinguished looking gentleman dressed in surgical scrubs. You assume he is a doctor and your friend would have a hard time convincing you he's actually a plumber. Our society and nature in general responds to visual cues such as those in order to interact with each other.
820324
Affidevit in a court.
46990
Because sentencing a murderer to free food, free clothes, a free gym, free cable, and all the other things that the law-abiding have to work for (and if they cannot legally afford have to do without) does not seem like a punishment to me.\n\nThe only way I would agree with doing away  with the death penalty would be if prisons were actually a PUNISHMENT for the crime committed - meaning none of the above perks.  A small cell with a toilet and a sink.  Maybe, if they behave, once a week they can go for a stroll in the court yard for exercise.  But that's it.
716719
This sounds like a deposition.  An attorney is obligated to investigate the facts before bringing charges in a criminal trial or filing a civil action in a law suit.  If they don't and the charges or action is wrong, the attorney can face sanctions or discipline.  The fact finding phase of a trial is known as "discovery".  Parties who have knowledge of the affair are asked questions or sign affidavits.  Both sides have an opportunity to investigate and do their own questioning of any person who would testify.  In a criminal trial, there is a constitutional right to force adverse witnesses to appear and swear by oath or affirmation in open court.\n\nIn a civil deposition, at least one attorney from either side will be present, usually at the office of the attorney who is running the deposition.  There will also be a court reporter.  One of the attorneys will ask the witness a series of questions for a maximum of 1 day of 6 hours.  The other side will make objections, but the witness still has to answer.  Those objections are later brought up before a magistrate or judge and if they are sustained, that part of the testimony will be stricken.  A witness in a deposition testifies under oath as if they were in court.  If they are later brought into court during the trial, they are bound by what they said at the deposition and could face perjury charges if they contradict themselves.\n\nFor a good view of a civil deposition, read part of the book or see the movie "A Civil Action" with John Travolta.  For criminal interrogation, Law and Order is a good drama (that is nothing like the real thing but is entertaining).\n\nAs a drama, the attorneys are trying to get the witness to reveal something or to hide something.  The witness may feel remorse but at the same time fear of punishment (from the law or the boss).  A conflict results from the lawyers who are bound by the law, and the audience who wants to see the truth revealed.  In actuallity, the role of the court is to protect each party's legal rights, promote substantial justice, and resolve disputes.  It is not the role of the court to find the truth.  The audience wants to see this however.\n\nIn most scenes, the lawyer is defeated in a deposition by words.  Either their objections fail or the words of the attorney create enough guilt to get the witness to break down and come up with the "truth".  There is a conflict between the witness and the parties of the case, between the lawyers and their clients, between the lawyers themselves, and between the lawyer and the witness.  You must discover what this conflict or relationship is between each role and this will tell you how to act.\n\nGood luck!
555578
Persuasion is irrelevant in court, especially during a bench trial.  Other than looking like a normal person instead of a scumbag (ie look credible).  What matters is knowledge and preparation.  The side that does the best job researching and presenting its case almost always wins.  There are exceptions (example: OJ Simpson trial).  But they are RARE.\n\nMost judges are extremely professional.  They won't give a rats ass how persuasive you are (or think you are).  They will care very much how good a job you do presenting your case.\n\nRealistically, get a good lawyer.
184420
Typically they are using their best knowledge of how to use the law to defend a case that their client brings them.  If you are on the wrong side of that case it can suck.  If you are on the right side of the case you love that lawyer.  Especially if you've been screwed so many times without using one.
1025545
It all depends on the part of the country and the politics of the judge, ie., conservative or liberal. Always wear a skirt in the south, just to be on the safe side.\nAs a Litigation Consultant, I generally advise my clients to wear blue to court. It's universally considered the color of "truth" and "innocence". Have you ever noticed that artists always depict the mother of Jesus with a blue head covering? Guess why. Red is perceived as an aggressive color--remember the old "Power Tie" thing? Green is calming, etc. Check some sites that discuss the psychology of color, and use that information accordingly to subconsciously shape the court's  perception of you, as your case dictates. Every advantage counts. Good luck!
124325
You should have asked, "How much money does someone need to hire a defense lawyer to get me out of this?" I guess it takes a lawyer that can seperate his values and remember that he is there to make sure the guilty party rights are not infringed upon.I personnally would not want to represent the guilty. But, that is what why we have rights. Guilty or not.. Remember the OJ trial.
544029
Well, its not an excuse, but all you really have to do is indicate that couldn't start out objectively.  Like indicate a bias toward the position of the prosecutor or defendant.  They don't like to have that on a jury.
1006647
this because the state's responsibility is to show cause...once they show that they have siffcient evidence to go to trial...(and the bar can be low/high depending on state/country/crime)... then the question of innocence or guilt is one of for a jury/judge. at which point the state presents its case and if the bruden of proof is met, then the accussed can be found guilty.\n\nhearsay (except for dying declarations from a victim etc) is not admissible as evidence which means that the state probably has some compelling evidence albeit circumstancial, that they can proceed with prosecution. i suggest you/accussed get a lawyer.
369964
I believe it was out of respect for the defendent.  I don't believe the defendent had a jacket on at the trial.  The symbolism throughout the movie was portraying Atticus as a man of higher authority.  The camera angle always was looking up at him.  I think when he took the jacket off he wanted to be thought of as being on the defendents level, not better than everyone else.
607640
It is a vulture thing. They speak lawyer/vulture language to the prosecutors, who are also lawyers. You have to have a single digit IQ to understand.
743096
Because if they're in the courtroom all the time, then they see only either lawyers or criminals.  So they just go for the lawyers.
807891
A criminal trial is not about evidence, it is all about what the jury believes. A person with a charismatic persona can literally get away with murder.
481665
Because these are suppose to be profesional people. If someone took their shirt off and ran around the office you would expect them to be punished wouldn't you?\n\nThere is no need for it, it just watses time and is insulting to the other team.
741791
The defendant cannot be compelled to testify against themself, which includes any statement (other than basic information when arrested such as name and address). Non-testimony (blood samples, hair, fingerprints, etc.) can be compelled.\n\nA defense lawyer cannot lie to the court. But the defense lawyer is not required to provide any information to the court that is confidential or that would hurt their client.\n\nThe court may determine that some information is not privileged, such as when the client says something to the attorney in front of other random people. That is a non-confidential communication, and the court can order the lawyer to disclose it. But that's rare.\n\nThe entire set of rules fills dozens of pages, and hundreds if not thousands of court cases. But that's the broad overview.
378777
No, no, no. This will not happen. First, a trial is very time consuming. For the lawyer, time is money. If his client doesn't consent to a trial, why should the lawyer want to do something which will cost him time without someone willing to pay the bill? Second, and perhaps more important, if a lawyer goes against the will of his client, he is open to being sued by the client, and sanctioned (fined, punished) by the state. A lawyer can advise a client that a trial would be the best approach, but the lawyer must, absolutely must, abide by the client's wishes.