The Reason Even Lawyers Need Representation

Again, for the people who think Michael Avenatti’s a bad attorney — he’s an attorney and he’s a bad person, but he knows how to cross-examine. Will it work? He only needs to sway one juror to hang it. But tougher evidence is coming. https://t.co/vN7ZvXPT3n

— HatInProSe (@Popehat) July 23, 2021

This works if the jury is inclined to believe Avenatti. But we're back to "fool for a client." Trial lawyers are not the client. They raise defenses for the client. If the jury doesn't accept those defenses, the client takes the hit. Avenatti is both client and lawyer here. If they don't believe Avenatti as the client, they aren't going to be impressed with Avenatti as a trial lawyer. Juries can be impressed with the lawyer (see, e.g., the OJ case), but they can also be impressed with the lawyer and not with the client. Avenatti has no such split, but he's imaging he does.  He's imaging he's the lawyer talking about his client; but he's the lawyer talking about himself.

You might think, "Yeah, that witness shouldn't have assumed so much," but then you think "Wait a minute, that argument's coming from the guy who the witness says screwed him over!"  If the question comes from a third party (a trial lawyer) you might consider it dispassionately.  When it comes from the accused himself, you're probably more inclined to think "Nice try, crook!"

One thing Avenatti’s doing an effective job at is pointing out the extent to which the government is rhetorically overselling evidence, which is a common AUSA mistake. If he can focus the jury on how the evidence doesn’t match promises, he wins.

— HatInProSe (@Popehat) July 23, 2021

Yeah, as long as the jury forgets the guy making that argument is the guy on trial for doing the deeds.  If the jury figures that out, they may decide the argument itself is not so much well reasoned, as well designed to distract them from the truth:  the guy making that argument wants you desperately looking away from what he actually did.  Being a skilled examiner of witnesses might be Avenatti's Achilles heel; not his shield.

Avenatti may be a skilled litigator.  He still has a fool for a client.