When Jessica Jones is collecting people who've been mind-controlled by Kilgrave in order to have them testify in Hope's trial:
They put them all together in a support group (thereby weakening all their stories because they've had time to be influenced by each other), rather than interview each person separately.
They don't think about subpoenaing the restaurant staff from the first few episodes. You know, the staff that have very little reason to lie and can positively say "that woman right there walked in with a creepy British guy who made us do things we didn't want to do." Nope, just go out and get a bunch of random people who at best can only testify that someone exists who can force you to do stuff (no proof that Hope was under his influence) and are far less believable, because at this point they're all mentally unstable or have good reasons for wanting to excuse their actions by lying about someone else making them do it.
Their plan is to kidnap Kilgrave, hold him prisoner, torture him into confessing, and then use that as proof. The only time that's going to be admitted as evidence is when they all get charged with kidnapping and torture. It'll be great for a trial... Hogarth's, Trish's, and Jessica's trials. Kilgrave's? Not so much (and that's assuming he wouldn't just command the guards to release him when arrested). It's such a bad idea that Jeri tells them it would never work, and instead, they use their crime to draw a police officer to the scene and make him watch. This is also a bad idea, since he would then be obliged to arrest them, and they still can't use this against Kilgrave legally.
Towards the end of the first season, Jeri Hogarth's secretary/mistress Pam kills Hogarth's wife Wendy to save Jeri, after Kilgrave commanded Wendy to kill her. Afterwards, Jeri attempts to serve as Pam's counsel during her questioning by the police; given her relationship to both people and also as another victim in the case, there's a conflict of interest present. On the other hand, Jeri may have just been doing "stand-in defense" for both herself and Pam (since they're both, at minimum, persons of interest, if not suspects/witnesses) and just handling things until she can get another attorney to come down and start taking full charge of the defense; in other words, Jeri just wanted to be there to make sure Pam didn't say anything incriminating before she could arrange real, ethical, legal representation for them both and start handling the case.
It turns out in season 2 that Hogarth Chao & Benowitz requires their attorneys to sign a “medical disclosure” clause to inform the firm of medical conditions that have the potential to affect job performance. Once Jeri’s partners learn she has ALS, they try to force her out of the law firm with a severance under the pretense it is their fiduciary duty to protect the law firm. One blog points out that there's a small problem with this “medical disclosure” clause designed to terminate lawyers: it is illegal.
New York law, specifically N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, states that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to discharge anyone from their employment because of disability or predisposing genetic characteristics. Forcing employees as a condition of employment to disclose health information that can then be a pretext to fire anyone goes to the heart of protecting anyone with a “disability” from being discriminated against. There was no effort to make any reasonable accommodations for Hogarth, just remove her from the firm.
There was no evidence that Jeri Hogarth was no longer competent to practice law. She did not have any symptoms at the time her partners confronted her. Their plan was to dismiss her from the firm, which is discriminatory conduct based on someone’s disability. As such, the contractual requirement to disclose medical conditions required the disclosure of health information that would otherwise be protected, and used as a license to discriminate against those with medical conditions. It's no wonder why in his one-scene cameo, Foggy called bullshit on the medical clause, because this in his eyes would be no different from someone firing Matt from a law firm on the grounds that his blindness rendered him incompetent from practicing law.
The irony is, there are valid reasons to terminate Jeri Hogarth. She has committed jury tampering, which is grounds for disbarment; asking Jessica to rough up Wendy as inducement to sign a divorce agreement was a crime; having an affair with her secretary Pam, which while not a crime was an HR nightmare waiting to happen, and they had to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit from Pam; attempting to use Kilgrave to secure Wendy’s signature on divorce papers resulted in Wendy’s death; her illegal purchase of a handgun from Turk Barrett to later use in a homicide (making Jeri guilty of murder by proxy); her ruining Kith's marriage and driving Peter to suicide (in season 3); and it's up for debate whether her entertaining with Hookers and Blow was illegal.
Throw in the fact that Jeri’s practice includes criminal defense (cases like Jessica, her mother, Hope, etc, plus a lot of Foggy and Marci's cases), patent litigation, and estates (her work with Danny Rand), which are all highly specialized practice areas. This is like a doctor who is an orthodontist, vascular surgeon, and pediatrician. Sure, it is possible, just highly unlikely. Moreover, Jeri’s malpractice insurance has to be expensive.
But instead of going after Jeri for any of her serious ethical breaches as grounds for termination, Chao and Benowitz picked discrimination against someone with a disability as their beach to die on. Not the best legal strategy.
Jessica Jones in season 3 appears to be susceptible to “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.” This doesn’t extend to people who aren't in law enforcement or work for them, and definitely not “anonymous tips.” The pictures and the claimed connection would be more than enough for a warrant to search Sallinger’s apartment.
Trish Walker's downfall at the end of season 3 sees her snap, kill three serial murderers (including Sallinger), and then get brought in by Jessica. She is then sent off to the Raft, established in Captain America: Civil War to be this submarine prison for enhanced individuals. There are several problems with this:
First off, Costa says the people on the Raft “pulled jurisdiction” on Trish. They never make clear what that means. Yet the Raft, at least as established in Captain America: Civil War, seemed to be created ad hoc for the Sokovia Accords. International agreements like the Sokovia Accords do not override the U.S. Constitution, especially agreements that weren’t even ratified by the United States, so there's no explanation as to how they could possibly get jurisdiction over Trish when all her crimes are state crimes in New York State.note On the other hand, it's possible that maybe it just means Trish falls under federal scrutiny, since Ant-Man and the Wasp showed Scott and co. having an FBI agent who monitored them
More problematic is the implication is that Trish wouldn’t even get a trial. Which is terrible. Costa says that due process doesn’t apply to supers, which is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment (the right to a trial and due process), as well as the Eighth Amendment (which holds that the punishment must be proportional to the crime). It’s actually a double whammy there: first, it's hard to imagine how an underwater prison is a proportional punishment even to Trish’s (numerous) crimes; second, it’s explicitly stated that she’s being treated differently because she’s enhanced. This is a status crime (where you’re punished just for being who you are) which, surprise surprise, is unconstitutional in the United States (and also violates international laws).
points out that there's a small problem with this “medical disclosure” clause designed to terminate lawyers: it is illegal.