(no subject)

[timelets]

Let's say, there are two competing experts talking to a jury in a civil case (preponderance of evidence, rather than reasonable doubt). The experts take turns, trying to convince the majority of the jury whether a certain party is innocent or guilty. To win the case, should an expert strategically withhold certain information from the jury during this process of communication? Obviously, not. Because every time she does it, the opposing expert undermines her credibility, e.g. by pointing out to the jury that certain information has been strategically withheld. Since the jury does not have the expertise to judge the matter on its merits, the case is lost once the credibility is gone among even a small subset of the jurors. Furthermore, in a criminal case this strategy would be a complete non-starter because all it takes to lose an argument is to have just one juror decide against it.

Maybe that's why prosecutors partition their cases by charges, rather than strategically withholding information from the jury.

re: _