This assumes that both lawyers were of equal competence. The authors does not think so (other members of the jury didn't think so).
In the end, won't the jury have to interpret "case law"? How can you be presented something without interpreting it.
In the end, won't the jury have to interpret "case law"? How can you be presented something without interpreting it.
And incompetent representation is grounds for an appeal. I'm not sure what exactly that has to do with the fact that John Doe off the street is probably not equipped to read primary source material on legal precedent and interpret it correct on his own.