Good facts or good law

Every time I am preparing for a trial I deal with the question of do I have good facts or good law. Rarely do you have both because those cases are usually dismissed or never go to trial. Sometimes you have neither good facts or good law and those cases usually plead. In most of the trial cases you will have either good facts or good law. In my experience as a criminal defense attorney in Texas, there is precious little good law for the defendant.

If you have the law on your side, you can often keep out a piece of evidence but that does not insure an acquittal. Having the law can hamper the state but does not usually stop or cripple the state's case. Absent a statute of limitations type situation, the law rarely can "set you free."

However, if you have good facts, you have a real chance at acquittal in front of a jury. The problem with good facts is that the state does not have a reason to dismiss the case as with a legal problem. The facts depend on whether a jury believes them so there are no guarantees. Still I would prefer, and I most often have, good facts instead of good law. Good facts seem to be compelling to juries but not necessarily prosecutors. So if you have good facts the only way you maximize their value is through trial. Juries love a good story but it has to be believable and not full of excuses. If you can present a different but equally plausible story from the state. Presto "Not Guilty" because there is a reasonable doubt as to which is right.

For the attorneys who glance at this blog occasionally, which would you rather have good facts or good law?