For example if the Prosecution were to say that the defendant was the only one that had access to the murder weapon and the Defense is able to prove that there is another person that had access to the murder weapon than the audience and the judge will be inclined to believe the Defense over the Prosecution.
Another argument that is used is to be clear and not have any doubt in what one is saying. To be more specific, the argument that is the easiest to understand will be believed over a complicated argument.
For example if the Prosecution was to say that the defendant went to the work of the victim and then went to the victim’s house when they realized that the victim is not there. While the Defense was able to prove that the victim’s neighbor saw the victim, hated the victim, and then killed the victim back of their hatred.
An argument that concedes to a point made by the other side also makes the speech stronger. If the judge and the audience are able to see that the speaker is thinking of both sides than it makes the speech stronger.
For example if the Defense is able to concede to the point that, yes the defendant did have the motive but another suspect had a larger motive than it makes the Defense’s case stronger. The Prosecution cannot do this most of the time because the Prosecution’s case has to be stable.
The final technique that we use is when we make a comparison to something that every person would know.
For example last year, as the Defense, we compared the Prosecution’s case should be like a stable solid brick wall. But that their case should not be like the unstable wall that it is. It was an effective analogy because the assault weapon in the case was a brick. With the analogue we effectively connected our comparison to the case itself.
