In many instances, this likely applies to civil cases, but probably not criminal matters. The reason would likely be because when deals are made in criminal cases, it's often for damage control, not to gain more on damages monetarily. But sometimes, in defense cases or criminal cases, one might elect to go to trial, hoping that one will not be found guilty. Or, if it's a civil defense case, that one's defense is excellent and moving party doesn't have the facts to win.
In any case where decisions must be made as to actual trial, the attorney(s) in charge must help make the decision with the client. If a big error is made to pursue trial in a civil matter when the basic premise is somewhat lacking, then in many cases going forward to trial is not in client's best interest. Yet we have seen cases where the evidence is lacking, but an attorney will pursue the damages regardless. In all cases where the strategy has been laid out, there should not be a substantial question of whether or not one has the proof as the moving party.
Nearly all questions for Plaintiffs' claims can be tested via proof required to prevail, in part, by the jury instructions for the subject matter. If there is no definite jury instruction for the chosen subject, you will have to research the issue. For example, there is no jury instruction for animal abuse in California, despite the huge CA animal abuse code sections.California likely has the largest animal abuse code in the entire USA.
As an example-- let's pretend we want to prove an illegal seizure under PC597.1, which involves seizing animals due to claimed abuse. An illegal seizure of one's property normally involves due process, a con law principle of law. If we can show and prove the lack of due process, we may seem to have a case; but if we cannot prove this, then what do we have? We would have a problem.
Unknown to many attorneys, the California law re animal "abuse" is found in many different areas, including, but not limited to the CA Penal Code, welfare/institutions, business and Professions, fish and game, health and safety, and more....including many different ordinances.
Also when it comes to say, Service animals, or emotional support animals, this may be governed by federal law. And the federal law will likely trump the state law?
Yet we have seen repeated mistakes in applying
either the federal law, or even in using the law itself in cases filed in state courts?
For example, see: https://petdefense.wordpress.com/2017/09/15/when-a-service-dog-isnt-a-service-dog/
Information on service dogs and emotional support animals/law:
If you believe you have a bona fide case involving
animal law issues, contact attorney! 530.359.8810