So you didn't believe me.  You didn't believe Bennett.   How about Ken Lammers of CrimLaw, former good guy who has now turned to the dark side.  In his ode to the first corollary to Bennett's Chainsaw, Ken tells of how the prosecution won because the defense lost.  Gave it away.  Seized defeat from the jaws of victory.

How many times must we keep writing about this?  Eliminate as many pointless conflicts as possible.  Give up nit-picky points that bother the client to keep him focused on the big picture.  The fewer factual disputes, prolix explanations, zebras (for the doctors who read this), the greater the likelihood that jury will understand and appreciate the fundamental factual dispute and resolve it in your favor.

It's not that Ken wants to start losing trials and putting criminals back out on the streets.  He's giving you a heads up.  Pay attention.  When I noted the difference between theory and reality, this is another example of what I was talking about. 

So just like some rookie prosecutor, unable to figure out a way around a solid objection giving up on the most important direct evidence he's got, provides the defense with an undeserved shot at acquittal, going to trial with a strategy that misses the forest through the trees gives the prosecution a big W that they haven't earned.  Don't let that happen.