I've felt for a long time that there's something wrong (epistomologically? ethically?) with the idea that prosecuting and defending attorneys should just try as hard as they can to win (within very wide limits), but I've never been able to put a finger on it.
Maybe there should be a third "side" which is supposed to point out logical and factual errors without being biased towards any of the parties in a legal case. Judges don't seem to be terribly thorough at it.
Here's a little more detail....
I'm not sure who should pay the copy editor so as to discourage conflicts of interest. If the defense has the resources, it would be reasonable to split the cost between the defense and the prosecution, but frequently, the defense doesn't . Having the government pay the copy editor (any suggestions for a better name?) seems like the only alternative since I can't imagine a charity raising enough money to pay for all the copy editors which are needed.
I'm sure that a lot of people would love the work, and that the meetings of the Association of Justice System Copy Editors would be interesting in some sense or other.