Four Things One Must Remember To Win A Court Case
Generally speaking, a lawyer has to discharge dual responsibility. Firstly, he/she has to protect his/her client’s interest. In most cases, the litigant is not interested in abstract questions of law or justice. Rather, what they want is success in their case. So, the lawyer has to do all that he/she reasonably can in order to win a court case. Secondly, the lawyer has to help the court arrive at a correct decision. This is because the Bench and the Bar are the two wheels of the chariot of Justice. Hence, the advocate and the judge ought to have equal eagerness to ensure justice. Some pointers that one can keep in mind to effectively win a court case can be discussed as below:
One must tell the court everything that it wants to know
It is only when lawyers for the two sides present the case from opposite viewpoints that a judge is in a good position to decide a case correctly. In fact, a court wants to know everything that can possibly be said in support of a certain view. Therefore, an advocate is only doing his/her duty, when he/she places before the court the facts and law which support that view. Barring certain exceptions such as Public Prosecutor in criminal cases, it is not necessary for an advocate to draw the court’s attention to matters which support the contrary viewpoint.
One must know the facts and questions of law
Unless one has studied the facts thoroughly, one cannot argue one’s case properly being a lawyer. For example, if there is a dispute regarding pedigree, one must know the extent to which they tally and on which they differ. An advocate arguing an appeal ought to be able to point out important contradictions in the statement of witness of the opposite party without requiring the appellate Court to go through all the depositions. Not only should the advocate be ready with the decisions that support him, but he should also study the authorities that his adversary is likely to cite. Numerous statutes have been amended from time to time. The lawyer must be acquainted with the latest amendments that have happened. It is quite risky to refer to old editions of books or statutes.
One must present their case convincingly
Having studied the facts and law applicable to the case, one is now ready to appear before the court. They have to present their client’s case in the best light, and thereby possibly win the court case. One is well within their rights in stressing the points which are in their client’s favour. But as an advocate, one must not mislead the court on questions of fact.
The same remarks are applicable to arguments on questions of law, though it may be conceded that there is more room for honest difference of opinion on question of law. In situations where two views are possible, an advocate is entitled to urge the view that favours his/her client in order to win the case. But if a statute is clear, or if the Supreme Court has decided a question of law, it is futile to argue the point further.
One must avoid lengthy unreasonable arguments & tiresome cross examination
The core object of arguments is to convince the court. If there is no reasonable chance of the court accepting a certain view, in that case, an argument is useless. It is allowed to raise technical points, provided that there is a chance of the case succeeding on a technical point. But there should be no fault-finding for its own sake. It is most annoying to find that a lawyer is merely playing to the gallery, knowing fully that the point has no substance. Lengthy arguments and tiresome cross examination are wasteful exercises. Judgments of courts should be concise and the arguments of advocates should be to the point.
Making a note of these points and thereby efficiently using it in their practice, would help the advocate to win a court case quite comfortably.