ABSTRACT
Numerous researchers have debated whether attorneys' decisions to plea bargain cases entail the sacrifice of justice ideals. Defenders gauge the strength of evidence through a tacit, taken-for-granted process that emulates trial proceedings: based on their implicit understanding of evidence, they envision a courtroom dialogue wherein the prosecution and defense take turns presenting their cases in front of a judge and jury. The Defenders' understanding of evidence is established by and acquired through interaction with their legal community. Persuasiveness, as a dimension of evidentiary story-telling based upon common sense, was apparent in one incident involving an arson case. The Defender was preparing for a sentencing hearing and stated that although the defendant insisted he was innocent, she and the victim both believed he was guilty. Typical weaknesses are deficiencies in prosecution cases that occur with relative frequency. Legally, defense attorneys are not responsible for proving a defendant's innocence.
