I've spent so much time in the actual trial. And you always hear him say the burden of proof

is on the prosecution or the plaintiff, if it's a civil case. I've found that to not be the case.

I know that that's true legally. I know that's true constitutionally. But in practice,

I always found that the jury believes that

if we're not down here for what the prosecution is saying, you need to give me an alternative

explanation for why we are here, because they're savvy enough to know there were a thousand ways

this case could have been disposed of before we got down here.

And when they see the prosecution over there, and they know the court reporter by first name,

and they say, hey, Doris, hey John, they're familiar with the judge.

They know the bailiffs.

You got all of this mahogany wood, and the seal is up there and the flags and they seem like they're part

of everything and the defendant is a one down interloper and it just seems like the entire system

is stacked against the defendant and prosecutors just don't tend to bring cases they don't

think they can win.

Yeah, and you're right about the relationship.

I remember in Louisiana where I clerked on the Fifth Circuit, one of the judges in a trial asked the defense,

is the defense ready to present your case and then turn to the prosecutors and said, are we ready to present our case?

And so that relationship can get a little too close.

Yeah, I tell my students, this is an important principle of American law, the presumption of innocence, of innocence.

But don't you believe it when you go into that courtroom?

The burden is on you. They believe your client is there for a reason.

And so you've got to give them a clear narrative as to what really happened in this case.

...