The lawyers of Twin Heist are strangely divided into two discrete and discernible classes, one side that has an incomplete understanding of what the topic is and the other side being more experienced lawyers who somehow are strangely blowing off research in a manner that looks to be arrogant rather than confident. Should the public and stakeholders of this case start to doubt their lawyers’ competence and credibility? Inadequate research met with such a spontaneous and demanding framework is undoubtedly a recipe for disaster.
Logical evaluation is enough to understand the procurement and passage of information. Possession and organization of information provide the ability to speak and debate with confidence and credibility, thereby allowing for logical arguments. Limited knowledge, half-constructed arguments, and unanswerable fallacies may put lawyers into embarrassing situations, especially if another lawyer questions a policy. Such looks to be the case with the Twin Heist case. Should the general public be worried that a robbery worth 4 million will go by a slap on the wrist for Isabella Stone, the convicted, and may repeat itself in the future? Will the Stone family’s truth ever be unveiled or left to rot as a mirage under the unfounded arguments of the defense lawyers. Don’t forget, knowledge is power.
- Saumya Desai
Comments