Each party entering the courtroom will bring a trial story, a competing version of the facts and circumstances that led to the case being filed. The one who will succeed is the one who presents the most persuasive story in light of applicable law and rules of evidence and procedure.
Lubet, supra, at 1-2, explains:
“But what is persuasive storytelling in the context of trial? A persuasive story can establish an affirmative case if it has all, or most, of these characteristics: (1) it is told by people who have reasons for the way they act; (2) it accounts for or explains all of the known or undeniable facts; (3) it is told by credible witnesses; (4) it is supported by details; (5) it accords with common sense and contains no implausible elements; and (6) it is organized in a way that makes each succeeding fact increasingly more likely. On the other hand, defense lawyers must often tell “counter-stories” that negate the above aspects of the other side’s case.”
McElhaney, supra, at 743, focuses on the facts:
“The most important part of any argument–any persuasive presentation–is the statement of facts. Put it together right and it will lead the fact finders to form their own ideas that will be based on the moral imperative that is lurking between the lines of the story.”
Mauet, supra, at 23, shows why you must deal with both of the competing trial stories:
“Two-sided argumentation is also important. Research shows that when one side has a strong case and the listeners are already favorably disposed, one-sided arguments–discussing only that side’s strengths–are more persuasive, since they reinforce already held views. However, where both sides have reasonably equal cases and the listeners are not disposed one way or the other, two-sided arguments–including the other side’s arguments and a refutation of them–are more persuasive. Because most cases actually tried have strengths and weaknesses on both sides, two-sided argumentation will usually be the more effective technique.”