Melissa Hinton

CJUS 2050
5.3 Critical Thinking Exercise
Adversarial model is a common model used in courtrooms in which a defense and prosecution
debate over evidences (physical evidence, witness testimony, etc.) presented by both sides. It is an
acceptable necessary evil, if you want to call it that, because it forces both lawyers to advocate for
their own side and seek out justice by whatever ethical means necessary. Even if a defense attorney
believes that their client is guilty, they are not allowed to express that. They are meant to seek out the
best possible outcome for their client whether that be accepting a plea agreement or proving that they
are not guilty all together. The prosecuting side has the same obligation to their client. Even if the
public and both attorneys feel that a defendant is guilty, sufficient evidence must be proved to either
cast a shadow of a doubt, or exonerate beyond a shadow of doubt. An example would be in the Casey
Anthony case where Jose Baez (Anthonys lawyer) didnt believe her when the case started. Baez
stated:
Well, you know, when she told me what happened, because of the prior lies, I wasn't so
quick to jump on board. So what I made the determination at that point in time is, Look,
I'm dealing or right now I have got the client of the boy who cried wolf. And I've got to -if I'm going to either put her on the stand or go in this direction as -- for her defense, I'm
going to have to corroborate it. And I literally made the decision, this is a situation
where if I can't corroborate what she's saying, it's useless to me, because it won't stand
up against cross- examination.
So you don't get into that -- you know, I still had that defense lawyer hat on, and I've
always had it on, so you don't get into that situation where you're believing or not
believing. It doesn't matter what I can believe. It only matters what I can prove.
Baez eventually decided, despite his initial views, that because he couldnt disprove Anthony, he
had to prove the things she was actually saying to him.
I believe this is the most effective model we have in the courtroom. A drawback of an
adversarial system is that you may or may not have the best lawyer for the job. A conviction
may also be based on how a jury is emotionally effected by the testimonies and the lawyers
questions.