Robert Shapiro Quotes

I think the prosecution had all the evidence in front of them to have won the case.

The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty. The defense attorney's job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth.

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Well, you know, one lawyer says I'm the only witness and I'm not credible. Another lawyer says this witness - there's tons of evidence that's been available for years.

I believe in my heart Simpson is guilty.

Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jury instructions are so numerous and complex, it's a wonder jurors ever wade through them. And so it should come as no surprise that they can sometimes get stuck along the way. The instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing even to lawyers. And reasonable doubt? That's the hardest, most elusive one of all.

Ask any lawyer - if a prosecutor thinks he can win a case, he'll prosecute it.

Courtroom dramas can be boring.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

I was in the courtroom prosecuting violent felonies for well over a decade.

A trial is not a search for truth. It is a contest and, often, one that produces no winners.

I don't think the law exists to arrive at the truth. If it did, we wouldn't have exclusionary rules, we wouldn't have presumptions of innocence, we wouldn't have proof beyond reasonable doubt. There's an enormous difference between the role of truth in law and the role of truth in science. In law, truth is one among many goals.

By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt.

The prosecutor, who is supposed to carry the burden of proof, really is an author.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

All sides in a trial want to hide at least some of the truth.

The trial of a case is a three-legged stool - a judge and two advocates.

Every trial lawyer knows what it is like to sit patiently while the other side puts on its case. Inevitably they make a few points that appeal to the jury, and waiting for the opportunity to respond can be painful. The desire to jump up immediately - to point out the flaws in logic or the factual distortions - is often overpowering.

I am not guilty, I am innocent.

If you're a prosecutor, and you believe the defendant is guilty, you only talk about ultimate truth, but not intermediate truth. If you're the defense attorney, you care deeply about intermediate truth, but you tend to neglect ultimate truth.

A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.

People in general have no notion of the sort and amount of evidence often needed to prove the simplest matter of fact.

The onus of proof lies on the plaintiff.

Due process does not require that every conceivable step be taken, at whatever cost, to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person. To conclude otherwise would all but paralyze our system for enforcement of the criminal law.