|
The TRUTH About Perry Mason
NOT SO. TOTALLY REALISTIC given the facts. Aye. There's the rub: GIVEN THE FACTS. Why does Perry always win? His secret is Paul Drake! Paul always goes out and finds incontrovertible proof of the bad guys' guilt. Who wouldn't confess when it don't make any difference if you confess or not? Perry's got the proof. It's easy to destroy the bad guy on cross-examination when you have proof of his guilt. It doesn't matter what he says. If he lies, Perry can prove it. The bad guy has nothing to lose by gloating a bit. He's going to jail [without passing GO] anyway.
If you want to criticize, the only unreal part is that Paul Drake always is successful. He always finds the fact that crushes the bad guy. Remember, Perry never won a case by having his client proclaim his innocence [even though, in truth, he was innocent, right?]. What won were OBJECTIVELY PROVEN FACTS. Similarly, your word against their word is not a recipe for success. Did you check out the 'best lawyer' section? When I'm talking about the group of lawyers that I call 'best' lawyers, I said that best lawyers only lose 'because of the facts'. If all of the facts are proven and if, taken together, they prove, clearly, one side should win and the other should lose, even if you're a 'best' lawyer, it you represent the side that should lose, you'll lose.
Facts are the Key to When we talk, I can tell you what facts you'll have to prove to win. That's my job. Because of my experience in the real world, in business, in engineering, in quality control, in statistics, in chemistry, in geology, in management, etc., etc., I'm a champion finder of facts. I know what facts MIGHT exist. We'll go over all the possibilities. If the facts don't exist, you'll lose [unless you're lucky and the other lawyer is awful]. O J won in criminal court because the prosecutors were awful; they didn't prepare properly and they didn't perform worth a d--n in court. O J lost in civil court. The O J case is a perfect example of the difference lawyers can make. That's why you want a 'best' lawyer. When I say facts, I mean provable facts. By proof, I don't mean your word against their word. The testimony of a disinterested party can do it. Physical proof is best: a letter, a contract, invoices, provable deliveries, etc. PROOF OF FACTS is the name of the game. Everyone feels good if the truth is on their side. I tell all my clients: THE TRUTH IS WHAT I CAN PROVE IN COURT. When I taught law school, I would have my classes play a game I invented called 'add a fact'. I'd start the game with a few facts and ask a student what result? Then I'd call on another student to add a fact and change the result. Then another to change the result [back to the first result]. And then another [back to the second result]. And on ... and on ... and on ... Here's a brief example: My
Start: First
Student: To
the Second student: To
the Third student: What would you add as the fourth student? THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT GAME IS THAT IT TEACHES TO LOOK FOR THE FACT NOT OBVIOUS THAT CAN CHANGE THE RESULT. That makes a 'best' lawyer.
What Will it Cost? Everyone wants to know how much a legal effort will cost. IT DEPENDS ON THE FACTS. Here's how it works: You tell me your story. I ask some questions, probably, to fill in the gaps [there are always gaps under the law]. Then I tell you what facts you'll have to prove to win at trial. If you then pull out objective proof of every fact I've mentioned, it's not going to cost you much. We're ready to go. Sure, that's never happened to me. But I've come close. The cost of your matter will depend on the cost of finding the proof of the essential facts. Is there a crucial witness? If you find him and he agrees to testify and his testimony crushes the other side, you've saved yourself a lot of money. If I have to find proof of key facts, it costs you money. If we have to hire an investigator [like Paul Drake], to get that proof it may cost a lot of money. The second most popular issue among clients that I have seen is: I don't want to necessarily go to trial. A reasonable settlement would be fine. I'm reasonable. How do we get a good settlement? Probably the next most popular issue is: When do we start preparing for trial? The answers are not really different: You only get a reasonable settlement by preparing for trial; you start preparing for trial from day one. What do I charge? It varies. Go to the 'Why Hire Me' section and I'll tell you lots about that. For now, just remember that its the facts that I can prove in court versus the facts that the opposing lawyer can prove in court that determine the winner. The cost of proving them determines the cost of your case.
|
|
I've
read and heard a lot of people criticize the Perry Mason show as
'unrealistic' because Perry never lost. It's been criticized because
the bad guy, never Perry's client, was always confounded by Perry's
cross-examination. The bad guy always confessed under Perry's withering
attack. 'Unreal' these critics say.
