Then you define the phrase differently than I do.
My impression of your posts here and elsewhere on this forum is that you place too much importance on the lawyer's powers of persuasion and too little on the actual evidence in the case and the law. Sure, the lawyer's ability to persuade the jury has an impact and can be significant, but most juries also do take account of the evidence they heard and the judge's instructions on the law. A good speech at the closing argument won't be enough in most cases overcome crappy evidence or law that disfavors the client's position. Most jurors can tell when a lawyer is totally BSing them in the closing argument, though there are exceptions where juries are totally clueless. A lawyer needs to have the sense to tailor his/her argument to the particular jury he/she is trying to win over.

