Those of you who say "you can't win without a lawyer" --- aren't judges supposed to rule based on the FACTS presented to them?

19 Answers

Relevance
  • 3 weeks ago

    Lawyers know the law.

    Lawyers know how to file motions, extensions, and other court-related matters. 

    Lawyers know the penalty of crimes, as far as fines and or sentencing. So they are able to negotiate the charges against you in relationship to the penalties.

    Lawyers know the judges and which ones may or may not be lenient according to the crime at hand. So they are more likely to have a hearing or trial with a judge they believe will have a more positive outcome for their client.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    3 weeks ago

    It's been my experience that regardless of "Facts" & in-spite of the 'Presumption of Innocence' Judges & Juries are typically predisposed to the common belief that an Accused Person is Guilty of something or one wouldn't need to defend against any charges in the first place.

    Thus, the reason it's commonly presumed that "The Attorney that represents himself no-less typically has a Fool for a client"

    So if it's a serious charge & if  you value your freedom, then for Christ's Sake GET A frkn LAWYER!

    But if you actually have to depend on an attorney from the 'Public Pretender's' office, just be advised that even 'Innocence' is never an effective defense because the Deck is always stacked with a built-in conflict of interest since even 'Those' lawyers are on the same payroll as the Cops, Judges & Prosecutors and they are usually more inclined to negotiating 'Plea-Agreements' than they are to actually litigating trials, because if they were any Good at it, then instead of being 'Public Pretenders' they'd be getting paid a hell of allot better working as REAL lawyers out of a frkn Law Firm!      

    • Blake3 weeks agoReport

      Ain't that the truth!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 weeks ago

    YOU can't present facts coherently. Judges actually DON'T render a verdict in a jury trial. the JURY rules based on their impressions of the people involved, regardless of what the judge tells them to consider.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 weeks ago

    Not exclusively. Judges are supposed to rule based on the facts AND the law.

    And the lawyers decide WHICH facts to present.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • A.J.
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    Small claims courts are without lawyers and ruling on preponderance of the evidence and testimony and who can be believed. In civil cases, attorneys are experienced at collecting and presenting relevant evidence and questioning opposing sides view. Also, there are civil laws in housing and many other matters where knowing the laws and past rulings are very relevant. Judges rule on LAW, which is more than just some facts. My nephew is an attorney representing property owners/landlords and tenants in California and has made use of laws.

    For example, over 5 women in an apartment is still on the books as a civil violation(prostitution house), but he told a client to say they are male by new gender laws where a person is the gender they claim. Laws against excessive pets - How do you know that this particular cat lives here? Speeding tickets involve accuracy and calibration of equipment and training of officers to use it and ability to know your car versus identical ones and discrimination in race and ethnicity of who the officer tickets and obtaining the necessary information. "Facts" can be argued or disputed and attorneys can help. Yes, a person can win a case on their own, and a person can self-medicate or heal their own wounds, but experienced and knowledgeable professionals can make quite a difference.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Chris
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    A judge will always find something wrong with your presentation if you insult his profession - the legal profession - by presuming to be able to do it yourself. Conversely, you will generally get at least something - if only a reduction in the charges against you - if you show respect for his profession by retaining the services of an attorney.

    • Lois Griffin
      Lv 6
      3 weeks agoReport

      it's not a matter of insult, it's a matter of not being able to afford an attorney (which is not free in CIVIL court).

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 weeks ago

    I have a lawyer on detainer. I wear my seatbelt when I drive.  I wash my hands before I eat. I have firearms locked in a safe. 

  • 3 weeks ago

    The Law & Ethics section is over there.

    Criminal courts aren't the Judge Judy show.

    • ...Show all comments
    • ANDRE L
      Lv 7
      3 weeks agoReport

      That's NOT where this question was when I answered it. And, the idiot asker fails to grasp that legal precedent drives much of what is admissible in any case, what isn't, and why it's not, especially in a criminal trial. No non lawyer can know remotely enough just about that.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 weeks ago

    True, but what you don't seem to realize is that lawyers have access to many facts that you not. Their profession also gives them the ability to know where to find facts and how to present them in court in the best manner possible.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Lolly
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    You can heal from a broken leg, too, without a doctor but that does not mean it's the best way to go.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.