Aggregate

I haven't written about bad written advocacy in a while, though I cannot say I've seen a shortage.  I think my favorite argument of the week went something like this...  (area of law/subject matter/identifying details etc. have been changed to protect the guilty.)

My client was prejudiced by the improper admission of the damning evidence.  If the damning evidence had not been admitted, the rest of the evidence would not have resulted in a conviction. Let's look at each of the other pieces of evidence. 
My client approached the other guy. Nothing criminal there. 
He was carrying a rock.  There is nothing wrong with carrying a rock. 
He spoke to the other guy.  Speaking ain't a crime. 
The other guy spoke to him.  This was clearly out of line and makes my client's behavior look perfectly reasonable. 
My client swung his arm while holding a rock, which rock made contact with the other guy.  That may look like a crime, but its not in the facts and circumstances presented here, in light of the other guy's egregious speaking behavior as has been previously detailed. 
In light of the circumstances, had the damning evidence not been admitted, there is no way that each of these individual innocent actions add up to a conviction for beating a guy with a rock.  Each of his actions -- approaching, carrying a rock, speaking, swinging his arm with a rock in his hand -- were innocent in and of themselves.  It is only in the aggregate, with the addition of the damning evidence, that my client appears guilty.  That's why my client was prejudiced by the admission of the damning evidence.

I guess you can't blame the guy for trying.