The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few is a book written by James Surowiecki about group thinking that, he argues, makes for better decision-making than decisions made by any single member.
The example he uses is a true story of a crowd at a county fair that accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox’s true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members, and also closer than any of the separate estimates made by cattle experts). Its central thesis should be applied by anyone thinking of going to trial.
Defense lawyers need only take their cue from the Government itself who typically has two prosecutors, a team of investigators and often a couple of legal interns, law school students trailing them around anxious to help in any way they can.
On my dream team, though, I would hire an extra lawyer, one who would be responsible solely for the legal issues, someone who can write briefs and legal memoranda in a way that federal judges in that district like them.
Take the hypothetical case, for example, of a defendant who decides to go to trial. If a solo practitioner represents the defendant, which is often the case, that solo practitioner needs to hire a team. And if he does not, then the defendant himself should hire a team to work with his attorney. It is the defendant’s life that is on the line. Any good lawyer should have no problem working with another competent lawyer or lawyers.
Without a complete legal team a defendant is taking on a tank (the U.S.) using a Volkswagen. Just the luxury of having several lawyers and everyone else on the team (wisdom is not restricted to lawyers) weighing in on matters of strategy, law, and evidence takes a defendant to another level.
DavidZapp