Unfortunately you forgot to pay your bribe lobbying fee's this month so you have to go to jail.

[US] I'm trying to think of common cases where a judge is the one declaring guilt that would warrant a massively expensive lawyer.

You have informal hearings on things like traffic court where the judges decide, but really a cheap lawyer that specializes in traffic stuff will have a decent chance of getting a ticket reduced. Probably because the lawyer is willing to make reasonable asks to the prosecutor rather than the judge for a reduction and the judge just signs off. Technically still pleading guilty and being found guilty, just of something lesser. People who represent themselves in traffic court seem to want to go straight to the judge rather than negotiate with the prosecutor and when the usually lame story gets told they get found guilty.

For criminal cases, normally it is a jury deciding. Expensive lawyers can put on a good show and do more research but the decision of guilt ultimately goes to the jury not the judge. I guess you could sub in a jury for the judge in the comic and I'd see it a little more. Expensive teams can also sift through for details such as what happened in the Alec Baldwin case to find something that got the case rightfully thrown out. The judge did that but it was less declaring not guilty as it was throwing out the case based on prosecutor misconduct.

People can ask for a bench trial, but unless somebody can point to a connection between a bench trial, expensive lawyers, and getting a higher not guilty rate I don't see it. It does seem, merely anecdotally, that pro se defendants seem to move for bench trials more than represented defendants, and they tend to lose. That seems less about expensive lawyer and more about having no lawyer at all and then just verbally farting in court until the verdict.

Civil cases don't have "guilty" or "not guilty" outcomes.

From what I've perceive of the average everyday non-sensational case, a public defender or a reasonably priced lawyer can do the job. The biggest hurdle is a combination of defendants' inability to shut up to the cops and court, and if there is other damning evidence the stubbornness of a defendant to take a reasonable deal and insisting on going to trial with bad facts against them.

Anyway too much dissection of silly internet comic.

Subscriptions are really getting out of hand

I'm sorry have you paid your free speech bill yet?

You're not required to have a jury (as you mentioned), and the current lawyer meta for "complicated" cases (such as cryptocurrency cases that are seen as too technical or boring) is to request a bench trial.

A relatively recent example is Trump's civil fraud case, where the prosecutor requested a bench trial. It was rumored that the defence attorney forgot a checkbox to make it a jury trial, but in reality they just chose not to file a motion.

It's not even about the lawyer.

It's about the fact that you could pay a lawyer that much. Which is why GoFundMe campaigns for legal costs don't automatically work.

I was talking about criminal bench trials. I skipped right over civil because there isn't a guilty verdict as an outcome. Yes, I know it is very nitpicky.

Usually it's about having permanent access to a lawyer to cover your legal ass before you get caught, as that's where the best legal loopholes are, and about what laws were broken. GoFundMe campaigns are usually for laws affecting mostly the poor, which tend to be much harsher and broader than the laws that rich people usually break.

I feel like this one might actually be better if it omitted the last five panels

r/im14andthisisdeep

The version that omits the last 5 panels is better than the version that omits the last 4, that is better than the one that omits the last 3, that is better than the one that omits the last 1.

Must have been hard to create this.

Pricey is a good word.