Evidence Presentation Quotes

In the courtroom, it's where a lawyer really becomes an actor. There's a very fine line between delivering a monologue in a play and delivering a monologue to a jury. I've always felt that way - I've been in a lot of courtrooms. The best lawyers are really theatrical.

We're lawyers. We present the arguments, and the court sorts out the merits.

A commission presenting evidence doesn't do a Jedi mind trick and make state legislators in some state suddenly pass a bill.

The grand jury, composed of 12 eminent New Orleans citizens, heard our evidence and indicted the defendant for participation in a conspiracy to assassinate John Kennedy.

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

It has something to do with the facts and the law and who the judges are. So I think lawyers sometimes exaggerate their role in winning and losing. Lawyers do have a role, and a major role, but they're not the only players in this game.

Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room.

My lord, I have some matter of law relating to the indictment, and I desire counsel to speak to it.

Our Constitution requires that the accused be presumed innocent before trial, thus granting all citizens the right to a bail hearing, where the accused has the opportunity to be represented by counsel, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses.

I'm a former federal prosecutor, a former associate attorney general. If I had done that, I'd have been prosecuted. It's a clear violation of 18 United States Code Section 791.What [Hillary Clinton] did were criminal acts. She has displayed the facts.

I will tell [Barack Obama] very simply : present what you have as evidence to the public, be transparent.

What I tried to do is to present the evidence that's available and that no one has been able to refute. Not even the Arab governments who own their media have been able to denigrate bin Laden as a man.

But the courts have dismissed the lawsuits against me and Lee Brown.

When you're editing, you're putting it together in a way that makes sense metaphysically. You're not inventing it, but you're finding the story that's there. You're making a play that's eventually going to go on stage and present itself to an audience. You want to show what happened, not exactly what you have evidence of happening.

Any good trial lawyer knows that if you've got one credible expert or scientific study, then you can let the jury decide.

When I was a prosecutor in San Francisco I would get advice on trying cases from public defenders and defense attorneys.

We have the precedent of Collin Powell ten years ago, when he showed the evidence, it was false, and it was forged.

Actually, he gave false evidence [of chemical weapons]. In this case,[John] Kerry didn't even present any evidence. He talked "we have evidence" and he didn't present anything. Not yet, nothing so far ; not a single shred of evidence.

If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn’t trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.

Pardon me, Mr. Craig, but how are we going to defense Mr. McCovey... in the upper deck or the lower deck?

When I present evidence, I expect the judge to hear and see all the evidence that gets presented.

As a lawyer, particularly in criminal law, you really do have to try to tell your story to the jury and hope that the judge makes rulings that allows your story to get through.

Going to a sensational murder trial is the only way I can relax.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns.

Lawyers know that certain witnesses are simply not going to be cooperative and are not going to answer the questions. And what matters at that point is what is your question? Because everything you want the jury to know should be in your question, or everything you want the jury to wonder about should be in your question.