Courtroom Confusion: How Trial Commentary Can Skew Perspective

Pro-defense v. Pro-prosecution = 2 ends of a spectrum

Have you ever watched a sporting event with a die-hard fan of one of the teams? Often, the fan is extremely passionate about their "side." You may witness passionate rants, intense debate about how the ref's calls are bad and part of a conspiracy against the team, and possibly even feel that logic takes a back seat to loyalty. Just like watching a sports game with a die-hard fan of one team, watching a true crime trial play out with an attorney in your ear can easily impact how you see the case. Your experience is shaped by their interpretation, passion and experience, not just what is transpiring before your own eyes.

Watching a criminal trial can feel like binge-watching the most dramatic legal drama—except the stakes are real. But if you're following along with a defense attorney or a prosecutor as your guide, you're not just watching the trial; you're getting a curated experience, tailored to fit a specific narrative. Whether you're hearing the case through the lens of a defense lawyer, who advocates for the accused or a prosecutor who seeks justice for the victim, your perspective is being shaped by their expertise—and their bias.

Defense attorneys naturally focus on reasonable doubt, poking holes in the prosecution’s case, often emphasizing the flaws in witness testimonies, police investigations, or forensic evidence. If you watch a trial with a defense attorney's commentary, you'll typically start seeing the trial through their eyes, questioning every detail that doesn’t fit their strategies and perspectives. On the flip side, prosecutors highlight the strength of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the emotional weight of justice. Under the influence of prosecution-based commentary, the same testimony that seemed shaky a moment ago might now feel like undeniable proof of guilt. Each side usually frames the case to fit their agenda, making it nearly impossible for viewers to remain truly neutral.

The result? Instead of forming an independent opinion, you're absorbing a perspective that's been fine-tuned by years of legal experience—experience that comes with a clear goal. Trials aren’t really about abstract truth; they’re also about winning. And when you watch through the filter of a legal professional, you're essentially watching a game where one side is like a die-hard fan, explaining why their team is superior and should win. If you really want to understand a case objectively, it’s crucial to step outside of these legal bubbles, analyze both arguments critically, and remember that real justice isn’t about taking sides—it’s about uncovering the truth.

Legal commentary isn’t necessarily deceptive, but it is inherently one-sided. Lawyers are trained to advocate, meaning their perspective is designed to persuade. If you primarily listen to one side, your opinions may form before you even realize it, and you might start disregarding arguments that contradict what you’ve been told. Such an effect is not unusual; after all, it is exactly what we, as attorneys, are good at. We want to convince you; we want to be "right" about our opinions. But, with all cases and controversies, there is almost always two ways (or more) to look at the issues. So, while watching trials through a legal expert’s eyes can be fascinating and informative, true understanding comes from considering all viewpoints. To be truly informed, it's important to recognize that unless an attorney is purposefully presenting BOTH sides of an issue, you are likely getting a limited, biased perspective. Otherwise, you’re not watching justice unfold—you’re watching a debate where one side already has your vote.