a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Doug at Not Guilty asks practitioners whether they’d prefer good facts or good law in a case. The answer, I think, is clear. Good facts (almost) always trump good law.

Putting aside the question of whether there actually is such a thing as “good law” for defendants, if the facts are not on your side, your options get severely limited. If you have a case with bad facts, you’re essentially looking to get the “least worst” resolution for your client.

If, on the other hand, you have good facts - such as DNA evidence that excludes your client - then not only can you argue to a jury (or a judge) that the verdict should be not guilty, but you can also try to create an exception in the “bad law” for your good facts.

Anyone disagree with this?