Investing in an acting coach to help you convince the jury that you are the victim might be a better strategy than teaching science to flat earther jurors.
There is little an acting coach can do to make you believable. It will likely make you less so. First, you won't be any good to start, and your instincts will get in your way. Second, the kind of things you do to act don't look good in real life. Even the most natural acting is actually highly stylized, and looks good only to a camera or an audience who has suspended disbelief.
You'd do better just winging it and hoping for the best. Your lawyer might give you instructions on how to manipulate a jury, but they will probably just tell you to be honest and let them do the work of putting it into context for a jury.
Acting is a specialized skill that is superficially easy and deeply hard. Crossing from one to the other is an aggravating process of suppressing all the things that make a good naive actor succeed and replacing them with things that feel completely wrong.
I suppose that’s Perry Mason stuff, but it makes logical sense.
If a cop has a criminal detector, they should be able to detect the criminal from a lineup.
I’ve personally heard police say the exact opposite: criminals can be the last person any would expect …
> showing the many times the cop had been in the room with criminals
> detect the criminal from a lineup.
Why would they want to try that, what do they care if you ask them to try
It's the well to do types who've only ever lived their life in nice places, never stepped out of line and never had much if any adversarial interaction with government systems that prosecutors want on the jury.