I kind of see that at the higher levels, but there can even be split opinions and contradictions in very simple cases.
For example a judge said that he wouldn't dismiss a case during a trial de novo because there was no record of the original trial (magisterial courts are considered courts not of record, but you are allowed to make a recording) showing that the objections were raised there. Then he later said he won't allow the use of prior statements at that magisterial trial to be used to discredit a witness. He also explained that the trial de novo is "a complete do-over". If it is in fact a complete do-over then why won't the petition to dismiss be considered? I understand that you can't introduce facts from the prior trial at a de novo trial, but any documented statement by a witness can be used to discredit them (ie you don't present it like facts in an appeal, but rather question the witness on why their answer is different from their prior statement). Too many details to list here to show the full legal argument.
Then take conflicts of interest and rules of statutory construction. If I have a precedential ruling saying that the letter of the law cannot be ignored to pursue its spirit, but the judge does just that... or how the judiciary has granted themselves special protections not found in the laws passed by congress, specifically that complaints against them are so secret that even if they contain exculpatory evidence it cannot be revealed. But this explanation would turn into a dissertation.
Perhaps the best example is that magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. I had one think that I was calling him prejudiced for requesting that the case be dismissed with prejudice. How does one tailor their argument to a functional idiot while still adhering to legal procedures/ideas?
For example a judge said that he wouldn't dismiss a case during a trial de novo because there was no record of the original trial (magisterial courts are considered courts not of record, but you are allowed to make a recording) showing that the objections were raised there. Then he later said he won't allow the use of prior statements at that magisterial trial to be used to discredit a witness. He also explained that the trial de novo is "a complete do-over". If it is in fact a complete do-over then why won't the petition to dismiss be considered? I understand that you can't introduce facts from the prior trial at a de novo trial, but any documented statement by a witness can be used to discredit them (ie you don't present it like facts in an appeal, but rather question the witness on why their answer is different from their prior statement). Too many details to list here to show the full legal argument.
Then take conflicts of interest and rules of statutory construction. If I have a precedential ruling saying that the letter of the law cannot be ignored to pursue its spirit, but the judge does just that... or how the judiciary has granted themselves special protections not found in the laws passed by congress, specifically that complaints against them are so secret that even if they contain exculpatory evidence it cannot be revealed. But this explanation would turn into a dissertation.
Perhaps the best example is that magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. I had one think that I was calling him prejudiced for requesting that the case be dismissed with prejudice. How does one tailor their argument to a functional idiot while still adhering to legal procedures/ideas?