“The good lawyer knows the law while the great lawyer knows the judge,” is an old adage. This was on display in the Lizzie Borden case, according to a fascinating lecture on the subject within Forensic History: Crimes, Frauds, and Scandals
There was a lot of evidence against Lizzie, including that she was seen burning a dress a few days after the murders of her father and stepmother. Lizzie had a motive to murder her cheapskate father because, following his death she would be able to move to a fancy house and enjoy a lavish lifestyle.
How did Lizzie get off? Professor Murray attributes her acquittal primarily to the fact that she was able to use what had been her father’s money to hire a lawyer who had been governor of Massachusetts and who, while governor, had appointed the judge who ultimately heard the case. The judge excluded a lot of evidence that would have been unfavorable for the defense.
I was recently involved in a lawsuit where it became painfully obvious that knowing the judge was of prime importance. One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys was involved in fundraising for the judge’s election campaign. It was obvious that they were communicating outside the courtroom since the judge was privy to information he would not have otherwise known. He was even able to have a juror removed with no voir dire or explanation given to that juror, among other things worthy of a made-for-TV movie.