When I received a case on appeal, the record would hundreds, or thousands, of pages in length. I would spend about a week reading, combing for possible issues, then research the issues and decide.
@Teri_Kanefield says we don't need legal pundits, and at first I thought, of course we need someone who understands how the legal system works and can tell us what's what. But then she wrote
"...lawyers confuse people. Confused people then turn to lawyers for explanations."
And I realized that if pundits quit saying the legal system was corrupt, we wouldn't keep asking, "is this corrupt behavior?" We would just ... follow what happens and see how it turns out.
It's a follow up from last week, answering some of the questions and comments I got.
In response to people telling me that I am overestimating the ability of people to decode legal news, I attempt to prove this hypothesis:
If people stop listening to legal pundits speculating, they wouldn’t feel confused and they wouldn’t think they need help from lawyers decoding the news.
When the prosecution rests in the Manhattan case, I plan to read the transcripts so far looking for evidence that supports the elements of particular crimes.
This is my thing: Reading trial transcripts. My job was reading trial transcripts looking for appealable errors.
Shall I tell you my favorite moment in a transcript?
The defendant (yes, my client) walked in to court with baggy pants. The judge (a woman) was offended and angry. She thought the defendant was disrespecting her.