Lane wrote, in Using Counterfactuals to Convince a Jury, about his triumph in a Tampering With Evidence case in the wilds of Midland County, Texas, in which he pre-suaded the jury by getting them to tell him in voir dire what tampering with evidence looked like, and then persuaded them by showing them through the evidence that the facts in his case didn’t look like tampering with evidence.
This is a good example of how counterfactual reasoning can rescue you from a case that, at first glance, seems impossible. I suggest that you study modal logic and counterfactual reasoning to be able to bring it to bear in your client’s cases.
I have not studied counterfactual logic. I wouldn’t know modal reasoning if it bit me on the butt. Compared to Lane I am basically intellectually disabled. And most jurors are even dumber than me.
So let me put what Lane is saying in terms that even I can understand: frame the case so that the jury pictures guilt one specific way, and if the facts don’t match that picture, it doesn’t matter what the law says.