A Post-Truth World?
Whether because of the rise of “alternative facts,” Artificial Intelligence hallucinating things that seem like they could be true but aren’t, or the myriad online outlets catering to particular niches without regard for objective truth, it’s hard to dispute that we’re living in an era where it isn’t always easy for people to identify truths or actual facts.
Disinformation and misinformation run rampant online. They not only cause people to believe things that aren’t true, they make it more likely that people will reject objective facts, and generally reduce people’s confidence that they can believe anything they see and hear. When people don’t know what sources they should trust, they often lose faith in the very idea that there are objective, knowable facts.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan popularized the expression, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Today, it certainly seems like people often seek out their own preferred set of “facts” and ignore those that are inconvenient. It’s hard to imagine how people who start with different assumptions could ever come to agreement on anything of importance.
But the Courtroom Stands Apart
Despite the difficulty of identifying objective facts in everyday life, the courtroom remains one sphere in which truth retains an overwhelming advantage. The courtroom is still the place where facts and evidence matter, not speculation, rumor, conspiracy theories, or flights of fancy. “Some people are saying…” and “I did my research on the internet…” don’t cut it in court. Moreover, in court, unlike in many other arenas of life, lying, eliding the truth, and distorting facts can get people into real trouble. There are the things people are willing to say behind a wall of anonymity on social media, and then there are those they are willing to swear to under oath. Judges still act as gatekeepers to keep out prejudice, irrelevant information, and random speculation. And when a party seeks to push the envelope from reasonable inference to unsubstantiated conjecture, their opponent will be right there to push back on it and demonstrate the lack of evidence supporting the argument.
This is how the adversarial system is meant to function – with each party seeking to put forward its best arguments and evidence, while attempting to undermine the other side’s case. The judge’s role is to keep confusing, inflammatory, and irrelevant information out of the courtroom. As a result, what the jury sees is the most rigorous and careful effort to demonstrate the truth. This is why juries still manage to reach unanimous verdicts even in the most controversial and high-profile cases. This is why juries are also able to cut through the noise, the confusion, and the propaganda to reach a conclusion supported by the evidence. And that is why Americans still have faith in jury trials, even as confidence in most other public institutions has fallen dramatically.
How to Succeed Where Facts Still Matter
Succeeding in front of a jury requires the sort of expertise that comes only with experience. It’s not just about knowing the rules of evidence or how to turn an eloquent phrase. Great trial lawyers can cut through the confusion, innuendo, and “vibes.” They organize the facts into a clear and compelling narrative that helps the jury understand the importance of the evidence they receive. They explain – not in inaccessible legal jargon – but in plain and precise language. Success in this arena does not come from gimmicks or courtroom theatrics, but from understanding and respecting how seriously the typical juror takes their responsibility to set aside any personal biases and decide the case in front of them based solely on the evidence.
It can be intimidating to know that a case that could seriously affect your future will be decided by twelve complete strangers. But the jury system remains the most trusted way of ascertaining the truth in a dispute. You want on your side attorneys who know how to connect with those jurors and how to make arguments grounded in facts and evidence, not bluster and bravado.
Bring us your toughest case. We’ll get the job done.