
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Another assumption, and one that is wrong unless your definition of trial lawyer is a lawyer who tries cases and does nothing else. Certainly I do more than litigate cases.
How much of the facts the judge or jury will see & hear depends very much on the particular case at issue. In some they get most or all of the facts, in others they don't. Each trial is different so it's not really possible to make such a sweeping generalization about them. But I certainly will agree that in most trials there are at least some things the jury will never see or hear. That's not necessarily a bad thing — the rules should keep out evidence that is unreliable or that is too prejudicial, for example.
Moreover, while the jury likely won't hear everything, the lawyers certainly want to know as much of the facts and the available evidence as they can and they'll work to find out as much as possible. I don't want to be blindsided by something I didn't know about when the other side presents it. I want to be ready for it. In order to properly evaluate the case I want as much information as I can — ideally I'd rather not have to assume anything. From there I can decide what things to try to keep out if I can and what things to emphasize in my presentation.
In any event, the issue I addressed earlier wasn't what facts a jury would hear. I addressed the problem of answering questions in this forum when the information is incomplete. Without all the facts, it's often not possible to give an answer with 100% certainty and in some cases the facts are so lacking that I cannot really do anything with it. So I try to ask questions to bring out more information to help give the person a better response if I think that can be done in a forum like this. And if I make an assumption because I lack the needed information I'll at least try to state that assumption so the person knows that if the actual facts are different the answer may change. Ultimately in some cases all I can really do is provide some general information that may be helpful and suggest that the person see an attorney to lay out everything and get the specific advice he or she needs.
I would hope that you would not seriously contend that when important facts are missing that we can give someone a really solid answer to his/her situation. It's not really any different than if you were asked a question about contracting work without the essential facts needed to provide a specific answer. I would hope you wouldn't just assume things and state a conclusion with certainty when you lack needed information. Instead, I expect you'd ask for the additional information you need or tell the person that you can't give a solid answer without those facts.