Obfuscated Defenses

      Defense Attorneys really have a talent of finding the most ridiculous stories as defense for their clients, but what is terrifying is that it sometimes works. Cases like the case study we saw today where the client is obviously guilty and there is a mountain of evidence pointing to how the murders White perpetrated were premeditated and despite all the evidence, the defense attorney managed to use twinkies as a defense stating that the sudden binge of sugar caused White's depression to escalate to the point where he didn't know what he was doing. That may sound absolutely ridiculous, but it worked and it begs the question, is White's defense attorney a genius or just lucky that such a seemingly desperate defense worked? 

      

      Mr. Stewart brought to light today how the legal system functions properly if both the prosecution and defense do their job really well, as well as the rest involved with the whole trial. I would agree, but I believe there are additions to that. The legal system functions properly if everyone does well without falsifying any information and if the jury withdraws all bias. So with that, like Mr. Stewart said, the legal system is not perfect. I believe this to be true because in order for it to be perfect, all of those involved have to be completely objective and unbiased, which again, I do not believe is possible (my argument To be Unbiased?). Also, there are a lot of times when irrelevant defenses are used and succeed to convince the jury that the defendant is innocent. So do you think the justice system still functions properly even with people bringing false and irrelevant information to persuade a jury, or is it unfair?