ABSTRACT
Then, too, no lawyer fully exploits in any particular case his full repertoire of technical skills. Thus for example while any fact each of the opponent's witnesses assert can be questioned (not only as to truth, but as to whether it can be said, whether it is relevant, etc.) the lawyer does not do so. Together the two opposing attorneys construct a 'hypothetical fact situation' which is to be taken as the base from which quite narrow, consensually arrived at, issues are framed as the subjects of the decision-to-come. No lawyer need agree to any assertion whatsoever made in court,4 but if he doesn't the system breaks down. Indeed it has happened that those concerned to break the system down have proceeded in precisely this way. In the Dennis case, where the first string communist leaders were tried, their lawyers systematically questioned every point their opponents attempted to make, caused the judge to rule, then appealed each ruling so far as they could. The consistent pressure they put upon the judge, by further not granting him the deference usual given, resulted in him giving up 'the dignity of the judge' and engaging in personality attacks quite as vicious as those the lawyers used on him - to produce this response which would 'demonstrate' the corruptness of the legal system to the world.5
