I strongly disagree here. The defense has the benefit of discovery months in advance. They have access to everything the prosecution does and they can say almost anything they wish. Now the investigator you speak of was terrible terrible terrible. But, I discredit it some because we were only shown what the producers wanted us tosee
No. I’ve tried murder cases and DUIs and thefts etc... the defense can’t say “anything you wish” they have to have a theme and theory or counter narrative to contest the State’s narrative.
Discovery in Tennessee does not have to come “months in advance.” Often it shows up a few weeks days or hours before trial. Testimony is also always different than what people have said at pretrial hearings so discovery is often of little value. Mostly what I’ve gotten before setting the trial Is a few slip of paper generated by the police department that all have the exact same arrest report narrative on them so better hope you did a good investigation. The State always fights to keep important things hidden until trial, if they turn them over at all. Clients have no resources compared to the state. Most criminal defense attorneys are one man operations. Most clients can’t afford an investigator or experts. It’s difficult to get approval for state funding if the attorney is paid a fee.
The prosecution goes first and last at trial in Tennessee. Primacy and the last word are tremendous advantages because, if the defense attorney is not good, they end up chasing the prosecution’s story rather than telling their client’s story. And if they do manage to tell their own story, the prosecutor get to stand up and say whatever at the end and you get no rebuttal, even if what he says is a total mischaracterization.
Laws across the nation have been rewritten to be incredibly broad. This happened in TN in 1989.
Presumption of innocence is worthless anymore. People trust the police, you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t do something wrong. Etc.
Finally, just the fact that a persons freedom rides on one person’s ability to perform, think on their feet, and instantaneously remember and apply vast swaths of legal rules, and react to unexpected testimony or proof... When you consider that that person has been required to have absolutely no formal trial practice training or apprenticeship, other than going to school for 3 years, where they learn nothing about how to try a case, learn mostly how to appeal a case, and then they take a multiple choice and essay exam that only marginally covers criminal law and evidence and has absolutely no practical applications... Asking one well-trained man to do all that is ****ing exhausting and by the end of it’s harder than you think to tell a coherent story, especially when people’s testimony changed.
That’s a ****ed up system that is designed to end in conviction.
Some attorneys are naturally gifted at it, but it takes a lot out of you. That’s why you see prosecutors try cases in back to back weeks if they need to, but even when trials were commonplace, excellent and active defense attorneys would only try a few a year.
