Osler's Razor

Yesterday afternoon, in my last minitrial of the Spring, an interesting thing happened. A very talented student really showed his stuff-- he gave a strong closing and one of the best cross-examinations I have seen. But... he lost the trial because his direct of the defendant never really brought out a believable story. In criminal law, especially for the prosecution (but also for the defense if, as here, they have a distinct story they are telling), direct is more important than cross-examination, and getting the story across is more important than anything else.

Substance is more important than style.

Part of the problem with teaching this is that much of our culture teaches the opposite. There are children's toys where the packaging costs more than the product, and a wristwatch that serves precisely the same function as a Timex costs a thousand times as much. On the front page of the New York Times today is an article about the increasing popularity of "starter buttons" in cars, replacing keys-- the idea is that you start the car by pushing a button rather than turning a key. This is what we are changing in cars, when fuel efficiency is static? It's solving a problem that doesn't exist... seriously, how often have you thought "man, I hate walking all the way over to the ignition to put the key in!"

In the end, the experience made me appreciate the process of the minitrials. As I mentioned, that guy is a good student, and part of that is that he genuinely seemed to take to heart what I said (and, more importantly, what the jury said). Unlike the kids toys and the starter button, he will change and adjust and add the substance to the style to be great at what he does.