Hard to tell without knowing more about the case. The part of trial I look forward to the most is talking to the jury afterwards because it's fun to finally break that ice wall and get feedback. Hopeless cases are commonly handed off to junior attorneys because trial experience is the primary way defense/prosecuting attorneys can advance…
Hard to tell without knowing more about the case. The part of trial I look forward to the most is talking to the jury afterwards because it's fun to finally break that ice wall and get feedback. Hopeless cases are commonly handed off to junior attorneys because trial experience is the primary way defense/prosecuting attorneys can advance up the ladder, so maybe it was soliciting feedback from that perspective.
Thanks! The attorneys were pretty young, so this is probably the explanation. I will say that the defendant and the victim both had really sad life stories and that we still don't know why he killed the victim. I suspect it was for some incredibly small amount of money or drugs and maybe the attorneys were hoping to make something happen with that uncertainty. They generally didn't present a defense, but cross-examined a few witnesses and seemed to be poking around for evidence to suggest that the defendant's rights had been violated (they hadn't from what I observed). I asked them what they were looking for in jury selection (i.e. why didn't they try to make a jury of complete idiots) and it was interesting to hear what they were looking for.
I also was pretty excited to talk to them even though I wanted the trial to be over. I have so many questions and would've loved to talk to the DA, the judge, and all of the court officers too. Juries get a weird inside view of some aspects of the court system, but the information we had access to was very circumscribed.
Hard to tell without knowing more about the case. The part of trial I look forward to the most is talking to the jury afterwards because it's fun to finally break that ice wall and get feedback. Hopeless cases are commonly handed off to junior attorneys because trial experience is the primary way defense/prosecuting attorneys can advance up the ladder, so maybe it was soliciting feedback from that perspective.
Thanks! The attorneys were pretty young, so this is probably the explanation. I will say that the defendant and the victim both had really sad life stories and that we still don't know why he killed the victim. I suspect it was for some incredibly small amount of money or drugs and maybe the attorneys were hoping to make something happen with that uncertainty. They generally didn't present a defense, but cross-examined a few witnesses and seemed to be poking around for evidence to suggest that the defendant's rights had been violated (they hadn't from what I observed). I asked them what they were looking for in jury selection (i.e. why didn't they try to make a jury of complete idiots) and it was interesting to hear what they were looking for.
I also was pretty excited to talk to them even though I wanted the trial to be over. I have so many questions and would've loved to talk to the DA, the judge, and all of the court officers too. Juries get a weird inside view of some aspects of the court system, but the information we had access to was very circumscribed.