General Discussion

When I first started trying cases, my mentors stressed to me that trials aren't about Perry Mason dramatic moments but careful and often boring slogs. The point isn't to break witnesses down, force on-the-stand confessions or offer attorneys great opportunities to preen and shout "Ah-HAH!" They are about getting information into the record to later be pulled together into a narrative of the case and presented to the jury.

In fact, often the worst thing an attorney can do is to try to "make their case" in the
moment or telegraph since that not only can confuse the jury before they have the full picture but also telegraph to the opposing side where they're going and what their strategy or case theory is while they can still respond to it.

This is something I've had to consistently caution my Trial Advocacy students against. They're not thrilled about having their dreams of being Lt. Caffrey dashed, but it makes them much more effective trial attorneys in the end.

And regarding Dean and Butterfield, let's not forget they were fact witnesses offering substantive testimony about their personal knowledge and first-hand observations and conversations, which is very different than an investigator testifying about an investigation and the conclusions reached therein. If Leon Jaworski or Archibald Cox had testified before the Senate Watergate Committee, they would have been much more Mueller and much less Dean and Butterfield.