More Opponents than Allies
A look at all parties involved in a criminal trial shows that the defendant faces an overwhelming number of opponents, starting with the prosecutor as the accuser, often joined by private plaintiffs and their attorneys, as well as expert witnesses and, ultimately, the court itself.
Once the main proceedings begin, professional judges make it clear that they consider a conviction likely based on the case file. Expectations of a favorable outcome should therefore not be set too high. Instead, the defense should, in a conservative assessment, view all court members as potential adversaries.
In addition to this numerical superiority of procedural opponents, it must also be noted that judges and prosecutors usually have significantly more courtroom experience than the average attorney.
While many lawyers handle a variety of non-litigation advisory cases in different areas of law, prosecutors and criminal judges operate exclusively in criminal law.
Common sense suggests that such an imbalanced starting position in a criminal trial hardly creates fair conditions. In significant or complex cases, it is essential to have a lawyer specialized exclusively in trial defense to be able to meet the prosecution and the court on equal footing.
Trial Defense is Conflict and Confrontation
Criminal defense often resembles a game of chess—but with unknown pieces. It is impossible to predict how, for example, a witness will testify, react to specific questions, or possibly even “crumble.”
Additionally, the evaluation of evidence is based on the court’s subjective impressions, and the verdict is determined solely by the court’s conviction. Moral perceptions, prejudices, and emotions ultimately influence how evidence is assessed and how the judgment is rendered!
It is a common misconception that cooperating or acting submissively towards the court improves the chances of a favorable outcome. The court is not entirely free in handling procedural motions by the defense, which can be used to compel additional evidence gathering. Where there is a reasonable chance of a different evaluation of the accused’s actions, there must be a consistent effort to fight—especially against a court that has shown bias against the defendant. In such cases, the defense attorney must not only endure but actively seek legal confrontation with the court. If there is a realistic chance of an acquittal or a significantly reduced sentence, the defense must fight with full commitment and all available legal means.
Trial Defense Requires Expertise in Witness Psychology and Interrogation Techniques
Witness testimony remains the most critical element in criminal trials—even though it is well established that witnesses are the most unreliable form of evidence. Therefore, the trial attorney must be able to adapt to significant uncertainties in witness statements and adjust their strategy immediately. Many questions remain unanswered from the outset: What did witnesses actually see? What do they believe they saw? What have they forgotten and replaced with imagination or allegedly reliable information from third parties, the police, or media reports? Do they have a personal interest in the trial’s outcome? Were they influenced, or did they even coordinate their statements?
In all these problematic scenarios, the defense attorney must know how and within what legal framework they can challenge the witness, without violating strict questioning rules. At the same time, the attorney must compare the witness’s testimony with the case file while analyzing key psychological factors such as statement origin, validity, credibility, personality, quality, potential confounding factors, and possible motives behind the testimony.
Only an experienced and trained trial defense attorney will typically be able to examine the statement’s logical consistency, structural alignment, level of detail, interaction descriptions, complications in the course of events, and whether the narrative focuses only on peripheral details while neglecting the core content. The defense must then effectively highlight these flaws to the court.
Simultaneously, the attorney must also combat the court’s inherent biases, including preconceived notions (“the guilty defendant in the dock”), stereotypes (“he’s the type to do this”), moral assumptions (“one simply doesn’t do that”), generalizations, and subjective opinions (“anyone accused of fraud is guilty anyway”). Finally, the attorney must protect their client from the court’s potential antipathy and clearly distinguish the defendant’s personality from the often confrontational nature of the defense’s legal strategy.
Trial Defense is Persuasion and Requires Negotiation Skills
Unlike civil law, criminal verdicts are often made “from the gut.” This may also be due to the fact that criminal judgments are typically announced immediately after the trial’s evidentiary phase and final pleas.
Thus, it is crucial to not only be legally competent but also persuasive—especially given the court’s broad discretionary powers. If crucial facts are ambiguous, physical evidence is lacking, witnesses give conflicting statements, or complex legal questions arise, the defense attorney must prevail. Open disputes with the prosecution must not be avoided, nor should confrontational conflicts over erroneous court orders and the enforcement of evidence gathering. Only an attorney who assertively and convincingly applies all procedural and legal means can achieve the best possible outcome in court and protect the client from judicial errors.
On the other hand, confrontation is not always the best strategy, though mere confession facilitation should not be the standard defense approach. However, if a burdensome, lengthy trial can be shortened or the penalty drastically reduced, an open dialogue with the court should not be shunned. Even such negotiation processes require tactical negotiation skills.
Trial Defense Must Provide a Safety Net
The limited appeal options in high court cases must not be underestimated. Any objections, motions, or evidence requests must be timely and formally correct to be considered in a potential appeal.
Given the extremely restrictive nature of appellate review for district court verdicts, the defense must proactively create reversible grounds to counter judicial errors. This requires exceptional knowledge of criminal procedure law and appellate procedures, without which the formal legal barriers become insurmountable.
If procedural objections were not raised in time, faulty court orders were not challenged, or evidence was improperly admitted, even a promising appeal could be lost due to a defense attorney’s oversight.
More Defenders, More Success: The Team Defense Approach
In major trials, particularly before district courts, team defense—where more than one attorney represents the defendant—has become an essential success factor for our firm.
High-stakes cases (such as those involving serious offenses, pre-trial detention, or major financial damages) place immense pressure on the defendant and their attorney. With conviction rates exceeding 80% in Germany and limited options for retrial, strategic defense planning is crucial.
By law, a defendant may have up to three attorneys (plus a court-appointed attorney, if applicable), ensuring a more balanced position against the prosecution. A well-coordinated team enables a more powerful cross-examination, better recognition of procedural and legal errors, and stronger shielding against judicial bias. Multiple defenders can file motions, challenge court actions, and prepare statements simultaneously, ensuring optimal legal protection.
We guarantee our clients strategic team defense, whether within our firm or in collaboration with external specialists in areas such as appeals, sexual offense cases, or aggressive litigation.
Expertise Alone is Not Enough: Active Criminal Defense Requires Experienced Trial Lawyers
Whether in the first instance or an appeal, successful courtroom defense depends not only on expertise in a specific legal field but also on trial experience, conflict resolution skills, and procedural competence.
Our firm is committed to maximizing every legal possibility in criminal proceedings and developing effective defense strategies that target the justice system’s weak points.
Given the wide-ranging consequences of criminal trials, the choice of attorney is crucial.
