Follow TV Tropes

Following

History HollywoodLaw / LiveActionTV

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** "Mr. Monk Takes the Stand" really stumbles when it comes to Harrison Powell's cross-examination of Monk on the witness stand.
***A large piece of the evidence is a large slab of Belgian gray marble, which Monk alleges that Gildea smashed apart and distributed across his driveway to use as an alibi (he was claiming that he was sculpting a statue of a nude woman on the night of the murder). Powell brings in a wheelbarrow of said marble. Here, he claims that if Monk's theory held up, the pieces would fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, which he "disproves" by randomly selecting pieces and holding them together. To be fair, though, the case is probably lost through Powell discrediting Monk by citing his psychological instability, which Monk unknowingly supports by fiddling with his microphone for a length of time, climbing out of the witness stand to put the marble together himself, and apparently screaming "mayday!" after realizing he was losing.
***And it sure had to be one big lucky break for Powell that he had managed to discredit Monk, because his reasoning with the smashed marble was just one dose of InsaneTrollLogic. His logic: if Gildea had destroyed the marble slab that was his alibi, then why not put the pieces back together like a jigsaw puzzle? This makes no sense: almost any construction worker, handyman, or anyone who has ever touched a jackhammer knows that the vibrations of the blade break up marble into lots of smaller pieces, which are all significantly different than each other. If the prosecution had thought to bring in someone like an iron worker to explain this, Powell would have lost because his "argument" would have been found to be bogus. And, even if it was like a giant puzzle, since when would two random pieces of a huge puzzle have more than an infinitesimal chance (one in a trillion, perhaps) of fitting together? It's like he shook a box of nuts and bolts and metal sheets, noticed they failed to assemble themselves into something, and concluded that engineering is impossible. Realistically, the prosecution should've been making a lot of objections on relevance, character and badgering the witness once Powell started using the InsaneTrollLogic and also attacking Monk's credibility.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The New York state governor would have no control over the situation, as this is a federal prison. It would be the US President instead, with federal agencies like the US Marshals used to storm the prison.

to:

** The New York state governor would have no control over the situation, as this is a federal prison. It would be the US President instead, with federal agencies like the US Marshals used to storm the prison.prison.
** There's also mention of parole for federal prisoners. Since 1984, there's no parole (although they can still get their sentences reduced by good behavior) so only inmates convicted before 1987 are eligible for it, but they say in regards to ones convicted long after that too.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Lolly assaulted a police officer...''in Seattle''. Not only should she not be in federal prison, there also isn't even a reason to send her to New York - there are many federal prisons much closer to Seattle they could send her to.

to:

** Lolly assaulted a police officer...''in Seattle''. Not only should she not be in federal prison, there also isn't even a reason to send her to New York - there are many federal prisons much closer to Seattle they could send her to.to.
** Further, the "Department of Corrections" is repeatedly referred to. In fact, it's the Bureau of Prisons which controls federal ones (which is also referred to, inconsistently, as well).
** The New York state governor would have no control over the situation, as this is a federal prison. It would be the US President instead, with federal agencies like the US Marshals used to storm the prison.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Series/OrangeIsTheNewBlack'': A number of inmates are in Litchfield despite not committing Federal crimes.
** Watson was arrested for armed robbery in New York City, and Poussey was arrested for ''trespassing'' in the same.

to:

* ''Series/OrangeIsTheNewBlack'': A number of inmates are in Litchfield despite not committing Federal federal crimes.
** Watson was arrested for armed robbery in New York City, and Poussey was arrested for ''trespassing'' in the same.City of an ordinary store (not say a bank, which is indeed a federal crime).



** Lolly assaulted a police officer...''in Seattle''. Not only should she not be in Federal prison, there isn't even a reason to send her to New York - there is a federal prison, FDC SEATAC, right in Seattle.

to:

** Lolly assaulted a police officer...''in Seattle''. Not only should she not be in Federal federal prison, there also isn't even a reason to send her to New York - there is a are many federal prison, FDC SEATAC, right in Seattle.prisons much closer to Seattle they could send her to.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** President Oliver tells his staff to pass a law: "no old doctors." This comes to pass somehow, even though legislation begins with Congress, not the White House.

to:

** President Oliver tells his staff to pass a law: "no old doctors." This comes to pass somehow, even though legislation begins with Congress, not the White House.House.
* ''Series/OrangeIsTheNewBlack'': A number of inmates are in Litchfield despite not committing Federal crimes.
** Watson was arrested for armed robbery in New York City, and Poussey was arrested for ''trespassing'' in the same.
** Maritza is a con artist who committed grand theft auto.
** Lolly assaulted a police officer...''in Seattle''. Not only should she not be in Federal prison, there isn't even a reason to send her to New York - there is a federal prison, FDC SEATAC, right in Seattle.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
He did depose her beforehand, but she changed her statements on the stand.


* ''Series/OrangeIsTheNewBlack'': Not so much the law itself, but the the logistics of how it is practiced. In the Season Two opener, [[spoiler: Piper is brought in to testify about Alex's supplier and gives some very unhelpful testimony.]] In the real world this might possibly happen, but a prosecutor would never in a million years put a witness in its case on the stand without thoroughly deposing them beforehand.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** It is highly unlikely that Ulrich, a man with a rape charge on his rap sheet, would ever be allowed to join the police force regardless of whether the charge was later dropped or not.

to:

** It is highly unlikely that Ulrich, a man with a rape charge on his rap sheet, would ever be allowed to join the police force regardless of whether the charge was later dropped or not.not.
* ''Series/TheTwilightZone2019'': In [[Recap/TheTwilightZone2019S1E5TheWunderkind "The Wunderkind"]]. Numerous liberties are taken with regards to American law.
** Raff convinces Oliver to run for president even though he is only eleven years old. They get around the presidential age requirement by having Oliver's mother serve as his proxy -- but then that would make ''her'' the President of the United States and render Oliver's presidential demands impotent.
** Oliver's first act after being sworn in President is to give free video games to everyone, and he plans to get the VideoGameCompanies to comply by threatening a surcharge tax of one million dollars per console "and put them out of business in a day." Unfortunately, the annual budget isn't created until October of the next fiscal year...
** President Oliver tells his staff to pass a law: "no old doctors." This comes to pass somehow, even though legislation begins with Congress, not the White House.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Ultimately, Season 3 takes this case of Hollywood Law and ends up [[RealityEnsues applying reality to it]], when immy tips off the insurance company about Chuck's mental illness. This causes them to raise malpractice premiums on ''all'' of HHM's practicing attorneys[[note]]While Jimmy did this with malicious intentions, some fans have pointed out that even if he hadn't, the insurance company would have inevitably found out about the illness on their own, just much later; Jimmy just made the inevitable happen sooner[[/note]]. Howard's patience with Chuck was already growing thin, and the insurance premiums going up because of Chuck's illness proves to be the straw that breaks the camel's back between them.

to:

*** Ultimately, Season 3 takes this case of Hollywood Law and ends up [[RealityEnsues applying reality to it]], when immy Jimmy tips off the insurance company about Chuck's mental illness. This causes them to raise malpractice premiums on ''all'' of HHM's practicing attorneys[[note]]While Jimmy did this with malicious intentions, some fans have pointed out that even if he hadn't, the insurance company would have inevitably found out about the illness on their own, just much later; Jimmy just made the inevitable happen sooner[[/note]]. Howard's patience with Chuck was already growing thin, and the insurance premiums going up because of Chuck's illness proves to be the straw that breaks the camel's back between them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Series/JaneTheVirgin'': Some of the ManipulativeBitch legal maneuvering that Petra pulls off to harass Raf would never hold up for a second in court.

to:

* ''Series/JaneTheVirgin'': Some of the ManipulativeBitch legal maneuvering that Petra pulls off to harass Raf would never hold up for a second in court.court.
* ''Series/Dark2017'':
** By German gun laws, only the military and the police are allowed to possess and carry automatic firearms. The Winden nuclear power plant is privately owned, and if you had your private security wield submachine guns in plain view of a bunch of cops, their search warrant for your power plant would be the least of your worries, but the cops in the show don't bat an eyelid.
** It is highly unlikely that Ulrich, a man with a rape charge on his rap sheet, would ever be allowed to join the police force regardless of whether the charge was later dropped or not.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I don't agree with the notion that the judge shouldn't have allowed him to testify on his own behalf. A defendant has every right to take the stand and testify on his own behalf in every state in the nation, and judges can't stop that. Secondly, the judge and the prosecutors can't prove that the alibi witness was perjuring herself when she said he was with him. All the tapes showed was a black-haired white male taking the victims behind the counter, where they were later killed. Can't prove she was lying.


** "Hubris": A warrant is issued to search the suspect's apartment but the courier hasn't brought it yet. Knowing the suspect will get there before the warrant, Det. Green sticks a toothpick in his lock to keep him from entering. The courier arrives a few seconds later and the police bust in and seize a videotape of the murders. The judge tosses the tape since the police secured the area before they had the warrant (even though they had reason to believe he'd destroy the evidence and were well aware the warrant had been issued). Then the judge allows the defendant to do two things he shouldn't have: call an alibi witness to perjure herself and take the stand to testify on his own behalf. Not only were the tapes admissible to cross-examine both of them but the defendant was clearly guilty of perjury considering he was [[AFoolForAclient representing himself]] and had personal knowledge he was suborning perjury. It is also ''totally'' legal to secure a scene if there's a concrete possibility that the evidence will be removed, destroyed, or otherwise endangered before the search warrant arrives. What the police ''can't'' do is start poking around, looking in drawers and such, before the warrant arrives.[[note]]As an example, if the police had strong reason to suspect that a criminal had evidence on his computer, they could secure the location and prevent the criminals from touching it. They couldn't actually fire it up and look at the contents until the warrant arrived, though.[[/note]]

to:

** "Hubris": A warrant is issued to search the suspect's apartment but the courier hasn't brought it yet. Knowing the suspect will get there before the warrant, Det. Green sticks a toothpick in his lock to keep him from entering. The courier arrives a few seconds later and the police bust in and seize a videotape of the murders. The judge tosses the tape since the police secured the area before they had the warrant (even though they had reason to believe he'd destroy the evidence and were well aware the warrant had been issued). Then the judge allows the defendant to do two things he shouldn't have: call an alibi witness to perjure herself and take the stand to testify on his own behalf. Not only were the tapes admissible to cross-examine both of them but the defendant was clearly guilty of perjury considering he was [[AFoolForAclient representing himself]] and had personal knowledge he was suborning perjury. It is also ''totally'' legal to secure a scene if there's a concrete possibility that the evidence will be removed, destroyed, or otherwise endangered before the search warrant arrives. What the police ''can't'' do is start poking around, looking in drawers and such, before the warrant arrives.[[note]]As an example, if the police had strong reason to suspect that a criminal had evidence on his computer, they could secure the location and prevent the criminals from touching it. They couldn't actually fire it up and look at the contents until the warrant arrived, though.[[/note]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Series/Supergirl2015'': The president of the US is an alien who was born on another planet, which is a violation of US constitutional law. The president may only be a "natural born citizen." Any person privy to that information would be legally bound to see her removed from office or else be guilty of treason. [[spoiler: It's ultimately addressed in the series. The president's true identity is revealed in the first episode of season 4 and she leaves office in the second one to avoid a pointless battle in court.]]

to:

* ''Series/Supergirl2015'': The president of the US is an alien who was born on another planet, which is a violation of US constitutional law. The president may only be a "natural born citizen." Any person privy to that information would be legally bound to see her removed from office or else be guilty of treason. [[spoiler: It's ultimately addressed in the series. The president's true identity is revealed in the first episode of season 4 and she leaves office in the second one to avoid a pointless battle in court.]]]]
* ''Series/JaneTheVirgin'': Some of the ManipulativeBitch legal maneuvering that Petra pulls off to harass Raf would never hold up for a second in court.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
That isn't what happens. Replaced with a good example from another episode.


* ''Series/TheTwilightZone2002'': One standard use of this trope with "[[FailedExecutionNoSentence if people sentenced to death cannot be executed for reasons beyond our control]], ''even after trying several times'', they are free" appears in "The Executions Of Grady Finch", among some other examples.

to:

* ''Series/TheTwilightZone2002'': One standard use "How Much Do You Love Your Kid?" revolves around an ImmoralRealityShow that kidnaps ''children'' and forces their loved ones to solve puzzles to recover them (and earn the prize money) or else ''they will never be seen again'', and something ''this'' insane can be allowed by a single parent without any knowledge (let alone consent) from the other. Even the closest approximation to the Trope in RealLife still requires the consent of this trope with "[[FailedExecutionNoSentence both parents if people sentenced to death children are involved and cannot be executed for reasons beyond our control]], ''even after trying several times'', they are free" appears put them in "The Executions Of Grady Finch", among some other examples.the kind of danger an adult can consent to (read: potentially lethal).

Added: 472

Changed: 1051

Removed: 156

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E9SpeakOfTheDevil Speak of the Devil]]", Matt Murdock goes to the art gallery owned by Wilson Fisk's girlfriend Vanessa Marianna to see how much she knows about Fisk's operations. The visit goes sideways when Fisk himself shows up, and there is a lengthy and tense conversation between the two archenemies. Since Matt is the opposing counsel on a pending lawsuit that Fisk is involved in (and one where Fisk has his own counsel), this sort of ''ex parte'' communication is completely inappropriate under [[https://decaturlegal.com/matt-murdock-ethical-attorney-netflix-daredevil/ section 4.2]] of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility. When dealing with represented parties, Matt ethically can't reach out to Fisk directly; he'd have to go through Fisk's lawyers first. Though it's also clear that both of them know this, since Fisk says at one point, "[[LampshadeHanging Although we probably shouldn't be talking. I believe we're on opposite sides of a tenancy case.]]"
*** There's a proper aversion of this in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S2E10TheDevilInTheBox The Devil in the Box]]", when Matt visits Fisk in prison, and he has to sign a restrictive non-disclosure waiver with Fisk's lawyer before he can sit down with Fisk.

to:

** "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E9SpeakOfTheDevil Speak of the Devil]]", Matt Murdock goes to the art gallery owned by Wilson Fisk's girlfriend Vanessa Marianna to see how much she knows about Fisk's operations. The visit goes sideways when Fisk himself shows up, and there is a lengthy and tense conversation between the two archenemies. Since Matt is the opposing counsel on a pending lawsuit that Fisk is involved in (and one where Fisk has his own counsel), this sort of ''ex parte'' communication is completely inappropriate under [[https://decaturlegal.com/matt-murdock-ethical-attorney-netflix-daredevil/ section 4.2]] of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility. When dealing with represented parties, Matt ethically can't reach out to Fisk directly; he'd have to go through Fisk's lawyers first. Though it's also clear On the other hand, Matt and Fisk both seem to be aware that both of them know this, this conversation is unethical, since upon Matt introducing himself, Fisk says at one point, says, "[[LampshadeHanging Although we probably shouldn't be talking. I believe we're on opposite sides of a tenancy case.]]"
*** There's a proper aversion of this in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S2E10TheDevilInTheBox "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S2E10TheManInTheBox The Devil Man in the Box]]", when Matt visits Fisk in prison, and he has to sign a very restrictive non-disclosure waiver with Fisk's lawyer before he can sit down with Fisk.



** A justified example: in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E5WorldOnFire World On Fire]]", Detectives Christian Blake and Carl Hoffman, two corrupt cops working for Fisk, shoot and kill a Russian thug in a precinct interrogation room for speaking Fisk's name. If it weren't for the fact that Fisk has the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau in his pocket, Blake and Hoffman would have been placed on modified assignment and administrative leave while an investigation was conducted into their actions. Because of Fisk's connections, Blake and Hoffman remain on active-duty, allowing them to participate with the other corrupt cops to kill the survivors of Fisk's bombings of the Russians' hideouts. It's lampshaded by Ben Urich when he sees Blake and Hoffman assuming command of the scene where Matt has holed up with Vladimir and a police officer who stumbled upon them, and comments "Detectives! I'd thought IAB would have you riding a desk after that thing with the Russians at the station", which Blake tries to pass off as them being needed due to manpower shortages ("You see what's going on here? No one's riding a desk tonight") but Ben clearly doesn't buy.

to:

** A justified example: in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E5WorldOnFire World On Fire]]", Detectives Christian Blake and Carl Hoffman, two corrupt cops working for Fisk, shoot and kill a Russian thug in a precinct interrogation room for speaking Fisk's name. If it weren't for the fact that Fisk has the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau in his pocket, Blake and Hoffman would have been placed on modified assignment and administrative leave while an investigation was conducted into their actions. Because of Fisk's connections, Blake and Hoffman remain on active-duty, allowing them to participate with the other corrupt cops to kill the survivors of Fisk's bombings of the Russians' hideouts. It's lampshaded by Ben Urich when he sees Blake and Hoffman assuming command of the scene where Matt has holed up with Vladimir and a police officer who stumbled upon them, and comments "Detectives! I'd thought IAB would have you riding a desk after that thing with the Russians at the station", which Blake tries to pass off as them being needed due to manpower shortages ("You see what's going on here? No one's riding a desk tonight") but Ben clearly doesn't buy.buy it.



*** ...of course even if Foggy or Matt had objected for the purpose of appeal, it seems like the D.A. gets a free pass on bribing the medical examiner in the first place. The judge’s decision hurts Castle’s case and defense, and if anything it strengthens the D.A.’s case, because now the line of corruption from the D.A. they were trying to prove is basically nullified. Even taking away the fact that the medical examiner was bribed and then confessed, the fact that he was bribed to lie on the stand in the first place should still stand. There’s no way to connect Elektra’s actions to Matt and Foggy, since she didn’t tell Matt what she was going to do. If anything, it seems as if Matt and Foggy are being blamed for Elektra's actions because when they start the line of questioning about the corruption, the M.E. interrupts and basically says, “I know what you’re trying to get me to say because I was threatened”. This makes it seem like Matt or Foggy threatened him, yet there’s no connection to Elektra and the D.A. gets a pass on the original bribe.

to:

*** ...of course even if Foggy or Matt had objected for the purpose of appeal, it seems like the D.A. gets a free pass on bribing the medical examiner in the first place. The judge’s decision hurts Castle’s case and defense, and if anything it strengthens the D.A.’s Reyes' case, because now the line of corruption from the D.A. Reyes they were trying to prove is basically nullified. Even taking away the fact that the medical examiner was bribed and then confessed, the fact that he was bribed to lie on the stand in the first place should still stand. There’s no way to connect Elektra’s actions to Matt and Foggy, since she didn’t tell Matt what she was going to do. [[note]]That Elektra sabotaged the witness is partially on Matt. It isn't Matt's fault that he didn't know what Elektra was planning, but he ''is'' responsible for not setting clearer boundaries with her.[[/note]] If anything, it seems as if Matt and Foggy are being blamed for Elektra's actions because when they start the line of questioning about the corruption, the M.E. interrupts and basically says, “I know what you’re trying to get me to say because I was threatened”. This makes it seem like Matt ''Matt'' or Foggy ''Foggy'' threatened him, yet there’s no connection to Elektra and the D.A. gets a pass on the original bribe.



*** Matt’s disastrous examination of Frank is worth pointing out. After a few questions, Matt asks the judge for permission to treat Frank as hostile, then launches into a long, rambling expository speech. In real life, permission to treat a witness as hostile means "treat the witness as though he or she had been called by the opposing party." This doesn’t change much. Mainly it means that Matt can now ask Frank leading questions (i.e. questions that suggest a particular answer is desired). It definitely does not mean Matt can ask “questions” that are long speeches better suited for a closing statement. The only thing that saves Matt is Reyes failing to object to just about every sentence he utters...
*** ...and Reyes' only objections are to Matt's cross-examination questions, citing them as “leading.” When the entire point of cross-examination is to ask leading questions to control the witness, which is allowed. It is equally wrong to object to cross-examination as argumentative, because cross-examination by its very nature is supposed to be argumentative to discredit the witness.

to:

*** Matt’s disastrous examination of Frank is worth pointing out. After a few questions, Matt asks the judge for permission to treat Frank as hostile, then launches into a long, rambling expository speech. In real life, permission to treat a witness as hostile means "treat the witness as though he or she had been called by the opposing party." This doesn’t change much. Mainly it It also means that Matt can now ask Frank leading questions (i.e. questions that suggest a particular answer is desired). It definitely does not ''not'' mean Matt can ask “questions” that are long speeches better suited for a closing statement. The only thing that saves Matt is Reyes failing to object to just about every sentence he utters...
*** ...and Reyes' only objections are to Matt's cross-examination questions, citing them as “leading.” When ''When the entire point of cross-examination is to ask leading questions to control the witness, which is allowed. witness.'' It is equally wrong to object to cross-examination as argumentative, because cross-examination by its very nature is supposed to be argumentative to discredit the witness.



** Several episodes feature police cars with forward-facing blue and red lights. New York state law prohibits forward-facing blue lights on police vehicles.



** [[https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/2018/12/20/making-at-deal-with-daredevils-kingpin/ As this article points out]], the circumstances behind Wilson Fisk's release from prison in season 3 are semi-plausible but there are some liberties.

to:

** [[https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/2018/12/20/making-at-deal-with-daredevils-kingpin/ As this article points out]], the The circumstances behind Wilson Fisk's release from prison in season 3 are semi-plausible but there are some liberties.]]



*** Another example is the decision to put Fisk up in a penthouse at the Presidential Hotel, following an attempted shanking on him. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has an established protocol for protecting prison informants and has special housing units available to keep them safe. Simply put, there should be no need and no reason to move Fisk to a hotel penthouse. A lot of this can be explained away as being because of Fisk's machinations (remember that Jasper Evans, the inmate who shanked Fisk, [[FalseFlagOperation had been paid by Fisk to do that]]; while the senior agent in charge of Fisk's protection detail [[DirtyCop has been threatened into working for him]]), but not all of it.

to:

*** Another example is the decision to put Fisk up in a penthouse at the Presidential Hotel, following an attempted shanking on him. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has an established protocol for protecting prison informants and has special housing units available to keep them safe. Simply put, there should be no need and no reason to move Fisk to a hotel penthouse. A lot of this can be explained away as being because of Fisk's machinations (remember that Jasper (Jasper Evans, the inmate who shanked Fisk, [[FalseFlagOperation had been paid by Fisk to do that]]; while the senior agent in charge of Fisk's protection detail [[DirtyCop has been threatened into working for him]]), doing his dirty work]]), but not all of it.



*** 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. [[LampshadeHanging It's no wonder 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); and it's up for debate whether her entertaining with HookersAndBlow 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), [[OmnidisciplinaryLawyer 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.

to:

*** 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. [[LampshadeHanging 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 HookersAndBlow was illegal. Throw 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), [[OmnidisciplinaryLawyer 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** 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. An 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.
*** 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.

to:

*** 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. An international 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.
*** 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.States (and also violates international laws).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** 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. Which is weird because the Sokovia Accords are part of an international agreement and 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.

to:

*** 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. Which is weird because An international agreements like the Sokovia Accords are part of an international agreement and 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.crimes in New York State.

Added: 1557

Changed: 60

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 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 that enough for a warrant to search the killer’s apartment.

to:

** 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 that than enough for a warrant to search Sallinger’s apartment.
** Trish Walker's downfall at
the killer’s apartment.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. Which is weird because the Sokovia Accords are part of an international agreement and 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.
***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.



** Luke's backstory plays fast and loose with human research ethics (which have been codified into law since WWII). FDA regulations explicitly forbid the use of prisoners in research providing no direct benefit, except in very specific cases (most of which require that the research have no or minimal risk). They also forbid using reduced sentencing as an incentive toward consent--that's textbook coercion. That said, Seagate doesn't seem to be overly concerned with legality, so they may be fully aware that they are breaking the law. It could be argued that this illegality was also among the many things Foggy used to get Luke released from prison at the start of ''The Defenders''.

to:

** Luke's backstory plays fast and loose with human research ethics (which have been codified into law since WWII).World War II). FDA regulations explicitly forbid the use of prisoners in research providing no direct benefit, except in very specific cases (most of which require that the research have no or minimal risk). They also forbid using reduced sentencing as an incentive toward consent--that's textbook coercion. That said, Seagate doesn't seem to be overly concerned with legality, so they may be fully aware that they are breaking the law. It could be argued that this illegality was also among the many things Foggy used to get Luke released from prison at the start of ''The Defenders''.



** A Russian says he's uncowed by police threats of sending him home to where he's wanted if he doesn't cooperate, as the US doesn't have any extradition treaty with Russia. However, the police fail to point out that extradition or not, they could still turn him over to Russia. The extradition treaty simply formalizes this, obligating one country to turn over wanted fugitives if the other goes through proper procedures.

to:

** A Russian says he's uncowed by police threats of sending him home to where he's wanted if he doesn't cooperate, as the US doesn't have any extradition treaty with Russia. However, the police fail to point out that extradition or not, they the State Department could still turn him over to Russia. The extradition treaty simply formalizes this, obligating one country to turn over wanted fugitives if the other goes through proper procedures.



** There's no way the state and federal authorities simply would ignore Gotham city officials allowing Penguin to "license" criminals. It would be a RICO indictment on all of them.

to:

** There's no way the state and federal authorities simply would ignore Gotham city officials allowing Penguin to "license" criminals. It would Quite a lot of people should be a facing RICO indictment on all of them.indictments.

Added: 1561

Changed: 1819

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E9SpeakOfTheDevil Speak of the Devil]]", Matt Murdock goes to the art gallery owned by Wilson Fisk's girlfriend Vanessa Marianna to see how much she knows about Fisk's operations. The visit goes sideways when Fisk himself shows up, and there is a lengthy and tense conversation between the two archenemies. Since Matt is the opposing counsel on a case that Fisk is involved in (a tenancy dispute in a building Fisk recently purchased from a slumlord), this interaction is completely inappropriate. Matt knows Fisk is represented by counsel, so ethically, he can't reach out to Fisk directly; he'd have to go through Fisk's lawyers first. This is lampshaded by Fisk, who comments, "Although we probably shouldn't be talking. I believe we're on opposite sides of a tenancy case." (There's a proper aversion of this in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S2E10TheDevilInTheBox The Devil in the Box]]", when Matt visits Fisk in prison, and he has to sign a waiver with Fisk's lawyer before he can sit down with Fisk).

to:

** Matt and Foggy aren't the best when it comes to running afoul of rules regarding client solicitation. In fact, when it comes to representing Karen in the very first episode of season 1, certainly Foggy should've gotten in trouble since he was at the time motivated by pecuniary gain. He almost walked out of the interrogation room when Karen said she could not pay. (Matt wouldn't be in trouble since whilst he was initially motivated by the potential for a paying client, he agreed to represent Karen for free when he realized, from listening to her heartbeat, that she was telling the truth and she was innocent).
** "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E9SpeakOfTheDevil Speak of the Devil]]", Matt Murdock goes to the art gallery owned by Wilson Fisk's girlfriend Vanessa Marianna to see how much she knows about Fisk's operations. The visit goes sideways when Fisk himself shows up, and there is a lengthy and tense conversation between the two archenemies. Since Matt is the opposing counsel on a case pending lawsuit that Fisk is involved in (a tenancy dispute in a building (and one where Fisk recently purchased from a slumlord), has his own counsel), this interaction sort of ''ex parte'' communication is completely inappropriate. Matt knows Fisk is inappropriate under [[https://decaturlegal.com/matt-murdock-ethical-attorney-netflix-daredevil/ section 4.2]] of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility. When dealing with represented by counsel, so ethically, he parties, Matt ethically can't reach out to Fisk directly; he'd have to go through Fisk's lawyers first. This is lampshaded by Fisk, who comments, "Although Though it's also clear that both of them know this, since Fisk says at one point, "[[LampshadeHanging Although we probably shouldn't be talking. I believe we're on opposite sides of a tenancy case." (There's ]]"
***There's
a proper aversion of this in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S2E10TheDevilInTheBox The Devil in the Box]]", when Matt visits Fisk in prison, and he has to sign a restrictive non-disclosure waiver with Fisk's lawyer before he can sit down with Fisk).Fisk.



** The trial of Fisk's assassin John Healy seems to happen within a week of the original crime, given that Ben Urich's subway line piece, discussed early in the episode when Healy has just been arrested, is visible in the issue of the ''Bulletin'' on his desk when Karen visits his office at the close of the trial. Murder cases, if not plea bargained, are seldom heard in less than a year after the event. However, it is clear that Fisk had bribed and/or intimidated a number of the jurors, and it is also heavily implied that he may have also bribed the district attorney and prosecutors to fast-track Healy's trial. Why neither Matt or Foggy thought the unusually fast turnaround time was suspicious is another question.
** A justified example: in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E5WorldOnFire World On Fire]]", Detectives Christian Blake and Carl Hoffman, two corrupt cops working for Fisk, shoot and kill a Russian thug in a precinct interrogation room for speaking Fisk's name. If it weren't for the fact that Fisk has the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau in his pocket, Blake and Hoffman would have been placed on modified assignment and administrative leave while an investigation was conducted into their actions. Because of Fisk's connections, Blake and Hoffman remain on active-duty, allowing them to participate with the other corrupt cops to kill the survivors of Fisk's bombings of the Russians' hideouts. It's lampshaded by Ben Urich when he sees Blake and Hoffman assuming command of the scene where Matt has holed up with Vladimir and a police officer who stumbled upon them, and comments "Detectives! I'd thought IAB would have you riding a desk after that thing with the Russians at the station", to which Blake says "You see what's going on here? No one's riding a desk tonight."
** On a sidenote, Blake and Hoffman giving orders at the standoff. NYPD Detectives are at the same level in the chain of command as regular Patrol Officers, and technically can't give orders to anyone but junior detectives. Only those in the supervisory ranks (Sergeant and upward) can give orders to other cops. Then again, they and many of the other cops in their precinct are on Fisk's payroll, so they probably know that they're breaking protocol.
** In season 1, Marci Stahl could have faced disbarment for handing over confidential work product. However, lawyers have an obligation not to participate in crimes and to tell the police if they have reason to believe their client will commit a crime. Landman & Zack has failed in both obligations (by not reporting that they are doing legal business for Wilson Fisk and not reporting his crimes to the cops), and it's her responsibility, legally, ethically, and professionally, to hand over all the information she can to the proper authorities. That she handed that information over to the lawyers on the opposing counsel (one of whom she used to have a romantic relationship with) is ''very'' questionable, but the New York Bar Association probably gave her a free pass given how extensive Fisk's corruption of the legal system went.

to:

** The trial of Fisk's assassin John Healy seems to happen within a week of the original crime, given that Ben Urich's subway line piece, discussed early in the episode when Healy has just been arrested, is visible in the issue of the ''Bulletin'' on his desk when Karen visits his office at the close of the trial. Murder cases, if not plea bargained, are seldom heard in less than a year after the event. However, it is clear that Fisk had bribed and/or intimidated a number of the jurors, and it is also heavily implied that he may have also bribed the district attorney and prosecutors to super fast-track Healy's trial. Why neither Matt or Foggy thought the unusually fast turnaround time was suspicious is another question.
trial.
** A justified example: in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E5WorldOnFire World On Fire]]", Detectives Christian Blake and Carl Hoffman, two corrupt cops working for Fisk, shoot and kill a Russian thug in a precinct interrogation room for speaking Fisk's name. If it weren't for the fact that Fisk has the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau in his pocket, Blake and Hoffman would have been placed on modified assignment and administrative leave while an investigation was conducted into their actions. Because of Fisk's connections, Blake and Hoffman remain on active-duty, allowing them to participate with the other corrupt cops to kill the survivors of Fisk's bombings of the Russians' hideouts. It's lampshaded by Ben Urich when he sees Blake and Hoffman assuming command of the scene where Matt has holed up with Vladimir and a police officer who stumbled upon them, and comments "Detectives! I'd thought IAB would have you riding a desk after that thing with the Russians at the station", to which Blake says "You tries to pass off as them being needed due to manpower shortages ("You see what's going on here? No one's riding a desk tonight."
** On
tonight") but Ben clearly doesn't buy.
***On
a sidenote, Blake and Hoffman giving orders at the standoff. NYPD Detectives are at the same level in the chain of command as regular Patrol Officers, and technically can't give orders to anyone but junior detectives. Only those in the supervisory ranks (Sergeant and upward) can give orders to other cops. Then again, they and many of the other cops in their precinct are on Fisk's payroll, so they probably know that they're breaking protocol.
** In the season 1, 1 finale, Nelson & Murdock gets a big break that allows them to locate a crucial witness against Fisk when Foggy's ex-girlfriend Marci Stahl Stahl, a lawyer at Landman & Zack, turns over files pertaining to work that firm has done for Fisk. Marci could have faced disbarment for handing over confidential work product. However, lawyers have an obligation not to participate in crimes and to tell the police if they have reason to believe their client will commit a crime. is engaged in/about to engage in criminal activity. Landman & Zack has failed in both obligations (by not reporting that they are doing legal business for Wilson Fisk and not reporting his crimes to the cops), and it's her Marci's responsibility, legally, ethically, and professionally, to hand over all the information she can to the proper authorities. That she handed that information over to the lawyers on the opposing counsel (one of whom she used to have a romantic relationship with) is ''very'' questionable, but the New York Bar Association probably gave her a free pass given how extensive Fisk's corruption of the legal system went.



*** "Fast tracking" in most states means means getting it to trial in fewer than 12 months, not a week. It involves a shit ton of discovery (basically searching and sifting through all sorts of potential evidence, along with answering questions, producing documents, and depositions). That takes MONTHS if not over a year to go through.

to:

*** "Fast tracking" in most states means means getting it to trial in fewer than 12 months, not a week. It involves a shit ton of discovery (basically searching and sifting through all sorts of potential evidence, along with answering questions, producing documents, and depositions). That takes MONTHS if not over a year to go through. But this is also a pretty standard thing in movies and other works of fiction.



*** There's a long, dramatic sequence where Frank is brought into the courtroom in chains and a prison jumpsuit, which would never be done in real life because it could bias the jury. The Supreme Court has ruled that the State isn't allowed to make a defendant wear that in court. A prisoner may choose to appear that way, if for some reason they want to bias the jury or just don't know what they're doing. But preventing a defendant from appearing in the dehumanizing garb of a prisoner is so crucial that ''public defenders'' often hold clothing drives to make sure their clients can dress up.

to:

*** There's a long, dramatic sequence where Frank is brought into the courtroom in chains and a prison jumpsuit, which would never be done in real life because it could bias the jury. The Supreme Court has ruled that the State isn't allowed to make a defendant wear that in court. A prisoner may choose to appear that way, if for some weird reason they want to bias the jury or just don't know what they're doing. But preventing a defendant from appearing in the dehumanizing garb of a prisoner is so crucial that ''public defenders'' often hold clothing drives to make sure their clients can dress up.



*** Both Reyes' opening statement and Foggy's improvised opening statement are way too argumentative for proper opening statements. Also, Reyes makes the classic writing gaffe of going into the well without getting permission, invading the space of the jury, and doing so without the bailiff tackling her.



*** ...of course even if Foggy or Matt had objected for the purpose of appeal, it seems like the D.A. gets a free pass on bribing the medical examiner in the first place. The judge’s decision hurts Castle’s case and defense, and if anything it strengthens the D.A.’s case, because now the line of corruption from the D.A. they were trying to prove is basically nullified. Even taking away the fact that the medical examiner was bribed and then confessed, the fact that he was bribed to lie on the stand in the first place should still stand. There’s no way to connect Elektra’s actions to Matt and Foggy, since she didn’t tell Matt what she was going to do. If anything, it seems as if Matt and Foggy are being blamed for Elektra's actions because when they start the line of questioning about the corruption, the ME interrupts and basically says, “I know what you’re trying to get me to say because I was threatened”. This makes it seem like Matt or Foggy threatened him, yet there’s no connection to Elektra and the D.A. gets a pass on the original bribe.

to:

*** ...of course even if Foggy or Matt had objected for the purpose of appeal, it seems like the D.A. gets a free pass on bribing the medical examiner in the first place. The judge’s decision hurts Castle’s case and defense, and if anything it strengthens the D.A.’s case, because now the line of corruption from the D.A. they were trying to prove is basically nullified. Even taking away the fact that the medical examiner was bribed and then confessed, the fact that he was bribed to lie on the stand in the first place should still stand. There’s no way to connect Elektra’s actions to Matt and Foggy, since she didn’t tell Matt what she was going to do. If anything, it seems as if Matt and Foggy are being blamed for Elektra's actions because when they start the line of questioning about the corruption, the ME M.E. interrupts and basically says, “I know what you’re trying to get me to say because I was threatened”. This makes it seem like Matt or Foggy threatened him, yet there’s no connection to Elektra and the D.A. gets a pass on the original bribe.

Added: 1056

Changed: 1237

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Nelson & Murdock are literally given ''one week'' of prep time before the trial. In real life, following the arraignment (i.e. when Frank pleaded "not guilty") and assuming Frank waived grand jury proceedings, a complex trial like this would be preceded by several weeks or even months of depositions, motions, and hearings, mostly to establish what kind of evidence could be presented to the jury. This is especially in important in cases like this one that rely heavily on expert testimony. Corrupt or not, Reyes wouldn’t want to rush this, either. And even if they did, it would be extremely unusual (and likely appealable) for the judge not to grant the defense an extension of time before the trial started. [[note]] For a real life comparison, Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes was arrested immediately after killing 12 people and injuring 58 more on July 20, 2012 and didn't even start discussing plea deals with the district attorney until March 27, 2013 -- more than eight months later, and his actual trial didn't start until two years later, and just the process of jury selection took three months.[[/note]] From a narrative standpoint, this shortened prep time is somewhat justified, due to the necessity to keep the trial on pace with the Elektra storyline. On the other hand, it does help explain in part why Nelson & Murdock’s defense of Frank Castle was essentially malpractice-level awful.

to:

*** Nelson & Murdock are literally given ''one week'' of prep time before the trial. In real life, following the arraignment (i.e. when Frank pleaded "not guilty") and assuming Frank waived grand jury proceedings, a complex trial like this would be preceded by several weeks or even months of depositions, motions, and hearings, mostly to establish what kind of evidence could be presented to the jury. This is especially in important in cases like this one that rely heavily on expert testimony. Corrupt or not, Reyes wouldn’t want to rush this, either. And even if they did, it would be extremely unusual (and likely appealable) for the judge not to grant the defense an extension of time before the trial started. [[note]] For a real life comparison, Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes was arrested immediately after killing 12 people and injuring 58 more on July 20, 2012 and didn't even start discussing plea deals with the district attorney until March 27, 2013 -- more than eight months later, and his actual trial didn't start until two years later, and just the process of jury selection took three months.[[/note]] From a narrative standpoint, this shortened prep time is somewhat justified, due to the necessity to keep the trial on pace with the Elektra storyline. On the other hand, it does help explain in part why Nelson & Murdock’s defense of Frank Castle was essentially malpractice-level awful. [[note]]Though there's an argument to be made that this rushing wasn’t really necessary to keep pace with the other storylines, for the simple fact that at that point in time, there was a natural lull in the narrative at that point. The Punisher arc had been resolved for the time being and the Elektra arc was still in its early stages. Elektra was still investigating the Hand and hadn’t yet dragged Matt in too deeply, so she could’ve easily left town for a while and come back later. If anything, a time jump of a couple of months at that point would've allowed Matt to properly heal from his injuries (something he did with implausible speed throughout the season, especially compared to Foggy) and allowed his burgeoning relationship with Karen to deepen. So rushing the Punisher trial storyline was unnecessary and undermined the credibility of a number of things besides the trial.[[/note]]



*** When Frank takes the stand, spectators in the gallery are holding signs decrying him as a vicious murderer who should be burned at the stake. Such signs should '''not even be allowed in the courthouse''', never mind an actual courtroom. At another point, a person in the gallery begins shouting that Castle killed his father. The judge orders the person removed, but Nelson & Murdock should have seized the opportunity to request a declaration of a mistrial. Even if they didn’t get it, it would be yet another issue they could appeal if the trial went badly (which it does).

to:

*** When Frank takes the stand, spectators in the gallery are holding signs decrying him as a vicious murderer who should be burned at the stake. Such It almost goes without saying that such signs should '''not even be allowed in the courthouse''', never mind an actual courtroom. At another point, a person in the gallery begins shouting that Castle killed his father. The judge orders the person removed, but Nelson & Murdock should have seized the opportunity to request a declaration of a mistrial. Even if they didn’t get it, it would be yet another issue they could appeal if the trial went badly (which it does).



*** A key part of Nelson & Murdock’s defense strategy was convincing Dr. Gregory Tepper, the medical examiner, to come clean about being asked to falsify the records of the deaths of Frank's family. Initially hesitant, the medical examiner decides to change his story on the stand and tell the truth. The judge clears the courtroom (although in reality she almost certainly wouldn’t just because a witness was testifying unexpectedly), and the medical examiner spills the beans and explains that he was forced to confess because Elektra had threatened him the night before. The judge strikes Tepper’s testimony…and Matt and Foggy do nothing but have a fight in the courthouse bathroom, rather than appeal the judge's motion. This is a concept in civil and criminal procedure known as “preserving an issue for appeal.”[[note]]Basically, if the judge makes an error during the trial, if one side doesn’t object during the trial, then it’s much harder or even impossible to appeal the error to a higher court later.[[/note]] Doing nothing, not even giving a verbal objection, about an issue this important, which could have affected the outcome of the trial, is a colossal screwup.

to:

*** A key part of Nelson & Murdock’s defense strategy was convincing Dr. Gregory Tepper, the medical examiner, to come clean about being asked to falsify the records of the deaths of Frank's family. Initially hesitant, the medical examiner decides to change his story on the stand and tell the truth. The judge clears the courtroom (although in reality she almost certainly wouldn’t just because a witness was testifying unexpectedly), and the medical examiner spills the beans and explains that he was forced to confess because Elektra had threatened him the night before. The judge strikes Tepper’s testimony…and Matt and Foggy do nothing but have a fight in the courthouse bathroom, rather than appeal the judge's motion. This is a concept in civil and criminal procedure known as “preserving an issue for appeal.”[[note]]Basically, if the judge makes an error during the trial, if one side doesn’t object during the trial, then it’s much harder or even impossible to appeal the error to a higher court later.[[/note]] Doing nothing, not even giving a verbal objection, about an issue this important, which could have affected the outcome of the trial, is a colossal screwup. And if Frank were a cooperative client, he'd have something else to have grounds to request a new trial because of ineffective assistance of counsel.
***...of course even if Foggy or Matt had objected for the purpose of appeal, it seems like the D.A. gets a free pass on bribing the medical examiner in the first place. The judge’s decision hurts Castle’s case and defense, and if anything it strengthens the D.A.’s case, because now the line of corruption from the D.A. they were trying to prove is basically nullified. Even taking away the fact that the medical examiner was bribed and then confessed, the fact that he was bribed to lie on the stand in the first place should still stand. There’s no way to connect Elektra’s actions to Matt and Foggy, since she didn’t tell Matt what she was going to do. If anything, it seems as if Matt and Foggy are being blamed for Elektra's actions because when they start the line of questioning about the corruption, the ME interrupts and basically says, “I know what you’re trying to get me to say because I was threatened”. This makes it seem like Matt or Foggy threatened him, yet there’s no connection to Elektra and the D.A. gets a pass on the original bribe.



*** Another example is the decision to put Fisk up in a penthouse at the Presidential Hotel, following two attempts on his life (one of which was a FalseFlagOperation). The Federal Bureau of Prisons has an established protocol for protecting prison informants and has special housing units available to keep them safe. Simply put, there should be no need and no reason to move Fisk to a hotel penthouse. A lot of this can be explained away as being because of Fisk's machinations (since [[FalseFlagOperation Fisk had paid Jasper Evans to shank him]], and the agent in charge of Fisk's protection detail [[DirtyCop is actively working for him]]), but not all of it.

to:

*** Another example is the decision to put Fisk up in a penthouse at the Presidential Hotel, following two attempts an attempted shanking on his life (one of which was a FalseFlagOperation).him. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has an established protocol for protecting prison informants and has special housing units available to keep them safe. Simply put, there should be no need and no reason to move Fisk to a hotel penthouse. A lot of this can be explained away as being because of Fisk's machinations (since (remember that Jasper Evans, the inmate who shanked Fisk, [[FalseFlagOperation had been paid by Fisk had paid Jasper Evans to shank him]], and do that]]; while the senior agent in charge of Fisk's protection detail [[DirtyCop is actively has been threatened into working for him]]), but not all of it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
At least in the US, prisoners can in fact reject pardons. See the Supreme Court case "United States v. Wilson"


* ''Series/HellOnWheels'': Governor Campbell claims he can't pardon Ruth if she won't accept it. While it's certainly unusual that a prisoner wouldn't want a pardon, doing so is the governor's discretion, and doesn't require anyone else's consent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Series/BabylonBerlin'': A judge is at one point addressed as "Euer Ehren", which is largely an an anglicism deriving from "Your Honor". The proper way to address a judge in German is "Herr Vorsitzender" ("Mr. President" or "Mr. Chairman").

to:

* ''Series/BabylonBerlin'': A judge is at one point addressed as "Euer Ehren", which is largely an an anglicism deriving from "Your Honor". The proper way to address a judge in German is "Herr Vorsitzender" ("Mr. President" or "Mr. Chairman").Chairman").
* ''Series/Supergirl2015'': The president of the US is an alien who was born on another planet, which is a violation of US constitutional law. The president may only be a "natural born citizen." Any person privy to that information would be legally bound to see her removed from office or else be guilty of treason. [[spoiler: It's ultimately addressed in the series. The president's true identity is revealed in the first episode of season 4 and she leaves office in the second one to avoid a pointless battle in court.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Series/{{ER}}''. February 2000, Carter and Lucy are stabbed by a schizophrenic patient. 2 years later, the man is brought into the hospital with a head injury, with a few throwaway lines from him and his wife indicating he's "doing fine, taking his medication", and out of prison/the mental hospital. There is '''''no way''''' that someone who murdered someone and almost killed someone else would be released from a mental hospital in as little as 2 years--as has been repeatedly stated regarding similar situations on other TV shows, they'd be institutionalized for as long as a prison sentence, if not longer (which assumes that the {{insanity defense}} would even work-most don't).[[note]]Being mentally ill isn't the same thing as legally insane. Depending on the jurisdiction and the defendant's state of mind, they're often still convicted, (they'd receive treatment in prison or an institution for criminally insane patients).[[/note]]

to:

* ''Series/{{ER}}''. February 2000, Carter and Lucy are stabbed by a schizophrenic patient. 2 years later, the man is brought into the hospital with a head injury, with a few throwaway lines from him and his wife indicating he's "doing fine, taking his medication", and out of prison/the mental hospital. There is '''''no way''''' that someone who murdered someone and almost killed someone else would be released from a mental hospital in as little as 2 years--as has been repeatedly stated regarding similar situations on other TV shows, they'd be institutionalized for as long as a prison sentence, if not longer (which assumes that the {{insanity defense}} would even work-most don't).[[note]]Being mentally ill isn't the same thing as legally insane. Depending on the jurisdiction and the defendant's state of mind, they're often still convicted, convicted (they'd receive treatment in prison or an institution for criminally insane patients).patients over their sentence).[[/note]]

Added: 243

Changed: 331

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Series/{{ER}}''. February 2000, Carter and Lucy are stabbed by a schizophrenic patient. 2 years later, the man is brought into the hospital with a head injury, with a few throwaway lines from him and his wife indicating he's "doing fine, taking his medication", and out of prison/the mental hospital. There is '''''no way''''' that someone who murdered someone and almost killed someone else would be released from a mental hospital in as little as 2 years--as has been repeatedly stated regarding similar situations on other TV shows, they'd be institutionalized for as long as a prison sentence, if not longer.

to:

* ''Series/{{ER}}''. February 2000, Carter and Lucy are stabbed by a schizophrenic patient. 2 years later, the man is brought into the hospital with a head injury, with a few throwaway lines from him and his wife indicating he's "doing fine, taking his medication", and out of prison/the mental hospital. There is '''''no way''''' that someone who murdered someone and almost killed someone else would be released from a mental hospital in as little as 2 years--as has been repeatedly stated regarding similar situations on other TV shows, they'd be institutionalized for as long as a prison sentence, if not longer.longer (which assumes that the {{insanity defense}} would even work-most don't).[[note]]Being mentally ill isn't the same thing as legally insane. Depending on the jurisdiction and the defendant's state of mind, they're often still convicted, (they'd receive treatment in prison or an institution for criminally insane patients).[[/note]]
* ''Series/BabylonBerlin'': A judge is at one point addressed as "Euer Ehren", which is largely an an anglicism deriving from "Your Honor". The proper way to address a judge in German is "Herr Vorsitzender" ("Mr. President" or "Mr. Chairman").
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The ''People of the State of New York v. Frank Castle'' [[http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/06/14/daredevil-season-2-part-1/#more-2805 is an]] [[http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/07/10/daredevil-season-2-part-2-the-trial/ exercise in this trope]]:

to:

** The ''People of the State of New York v. Frank Castle'' [[http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/06/14/daredevil-season-2-part-1/#more-2805 is an]] [[http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/07/10/daredevil-season-2-part-2-the-trial/ exercise exercise]] [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRTSxbgekMM in this trope]]:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The series finale; Good Samaritan laws do not work that way for a number of reasons:

to:

** The series finale; [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhg3hW3K_KA Good Samaritan laws do not work that way for a number of reasons:reasons]]:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None




Added DiffLines:

** 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 that enough for a warrant to search the killer’s apartment.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Series/HowIMetYourMother'': Marshall had superhunk Brad (played by Joe Manganiello) as his opposing counsel in a civil suit. In the first place, Brad pretended to be interviewing for a job at Marshall's firm so he could steal their strategy for the case, which could have gotten him disbarred, and he even admitted it to Marshall after the fact. Then, somehow, the jury was made up entirely of women who were biased in Brad's favor because they wanted to fuck him. This is something that, for obvious reasons, would not be allowed to happen during the jury selection process. Finally, the judge, who is very obviously attracted to Brad, shows blatant favoritism throughout the process, and when Marshall manages to win, awards a tiny judgment. With the official record and a courtroom full of witnesses, this judge's career ought to have been blown up. The ''only'' possible explanation? Marshall is an UnreliableNarrator and exaggerated the story.

to:

* ''Series/HowIMetYourMother'': Marshall had superhunk Brad (played by Joe Manganiello) as his opposing counsel in a civil suit. In the first place, Brad pretended to be interviewing for a job at Marshall's firm so he could steal their strategy for the case, which could have gotten him disbarred, and he even admitted it to Marshall after the fact. Then, somehow, the jury was made up entirely of women who were biased in Brad's favor because they wanted to fuck him. This is something that, for obvious reasons, would not be allowed to happen during the jury selection process. Finally, the judge, who is very obviously attracted to Brad, shows blatant favoritism throughout the process, and when Marshall manages to win, awards a tiny judgment. With the official record and a courtroom full of witnesses, this judge's career ought to have been blown up. The ''only'' possible explanation? Marshall is an UnreliableNarrator and exaggerated the story.story when telling it to Ted. Ted is also an UnreliableNarrator and has no legal background so he further distorted the story when retelling it to his kids years later.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Series/TwoBrokeGirls'': In "And The High Holiday" Max mentions a bunch of states that have legalized marijuana with only Colorado and Washington recently allowing recreational pot use. The rest are either decriminalized or allow medical marijuana or both or neither. The big baggie of pot that Max has is more than enough to get arrested, even in states where it's decriminalized. They only allow possession under a certain amount to not be criminalized and instead subject to fines.

to:

* ''Series/TwoBrokeGirls'': In "And The High Holiday" Max mentions a bunch of states that have legalized marijuana with only Colorado and Washington recently allowing recreational pot use. The rest are either decriminalized or allow medical marijuana or both or neither. The big baggie of pot that Max has is more than enough to get arrested, even in states where it's decriminalized. They only allow possession under a certain amount to not be criminalized and instead subject to fines.fines.
* ''Series/{{ER}}''. February 2000, Carter and Lucy are stabbed by a schizophrenic patient. 2 years later, the man is brought into the hospital with a head injury, with a few throwaway lines from him and his wife indicating he's "doing fine, taking his medication", and out of prison/the mental hospital. There is '''''no way''''' that someone who murdered someone and almost killed someone else would be released from a mental hospital in as little as 2 years--as has been repeatedly stated regarding similar situations on other TV shows, they'd be institutionalized for as long as a prison sentence, if not longer.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Series/TheTwilightZone2002'': One standard use of this trope with "[[FailedExecutionNoSentence if people sentenced to death cannot be executed for reasons beyond our control]], ''even after trying several times'', they are free" appears in "The Executions Of Grady Finch", among some other examples.

to:

* ''Series/TheTwilightZone2002'': One standard use of this trope with "[[FailedExecutionNoSentence if people sentenced to death cannot be executed for reasons beyond our control]], ''even after trying several times'', they are free" appears in "The Executions Of Grady Finch", among some other examples.examples.
* ''Series/TwoBrokeGirls'': In "And The High Holiday" Max mentions a bunch of states that have legalized marijuana with only Colorado and Washington recently allowing recreational pot use. The rest are either decriminalized or allow medical marijuana or both or neither. The big baggie of pot that Max has is more than enough to get arrested, even in states where it's decriminalized. They only allow possession under a certain amount to not be criminalized and instead subject to fines.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Once Fisk gets his conviction overturned, the main characters suddenly act like they must get him on new charges. Unless the judges ruled that there was insufficient evidence against him for any reasonable jury to convict him though (quite unlikely), this would result in Fisk being granted a retrial on the same RICO charges.[[note]]We know for a certainty that Fisk was convicted of the murders of Detective Blake and the other cops killed on the night of the bombings, since the protesters at the Presidential Hotel's courtyard are holding signs denouncing Fisk as a cop killer. Beyond that, we can only speculate[[/note]] Not to mention, it's totally possible (and even pointed out by Foggy) that Fisk could be tried on state charges in New York without regard to the outcome of his federal case. It's explained that the reason it takes so long for anyone to go this route is because District Attorney Blake Tower is reluctant to prosecute Fisk because he doesn't want to jeopardize his reelection campaign / get intimidated by Fisk, though curiously no one considers taking up with the New York State's Attorney.
*** Marci convinces Foggy that he should run against Blake Tower as a write-in District Attorney candidate to bring Tower's inactivity in prosecuting Fisk to public light. Yet, while campaigning, Foggy still has enough time to investigate Fisk and be lawyer for Karen and for Matt at times. In real life, campaigning is a 24/7 job. Foggy wouldn’t have had time for anything else. In addition, while Foggy's intention was "make myself so public that I'm untouchable to Fisk," in real life, it would have exposed him way too much. It would have been very easy for Fisk to get to him if his profile were to reach that level. On top of that, there are so many other details of the story arc that are just incompatible with campaigning. For instance, Marci and Foggy probably would have had to get married ''immediately'' as soon as Foggy threw his hat in the ring. Also, if Foggy won, Marci would have no choice but to quit her job at Jeri Hogarth & Associates to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

to:

*** Once Fisk gets his conviction overturned, the main characters suddenly act like they must get him on new charges. Unless the judges ruled that there was insufficient evidence against him for any reasonable jury to convict him though (quite unlikely), this would result in Fisk being granted a retrial on the same RICO charges.[[note]]We know for a certainty that Fisk [[note]]Fisk was convicted of charged with the murders of Detective Blake and the other cops killed on the night of the bombings, since as evidenced by the protesters at the Presidential Hotel's courtyard are holding signs denouncing Fisk as a cop killer. Beyond that, we can only speculate[[/note]] killer, but those weren't part of his five RICO charges he was convicted on, since Hattley mentions earlier "that wasn't proven in court," implying Hoffman's testimony was tossed[[/note]] Not to mention, it's totally possible (and even pointed out by Foggy) that Fisk could be tried on state charges in New York without regard to the outcome of his federal case. It's explained that the reason it takes so long for anyone to go this route is because District Attorney Blake Tower is reluctant to prosecute Fisk because he doesn't want to jeopardize his reelection campaign / get intimidated by Fisk, though curiously no one considers taking up with the New York State's Attorney.
*** Marci convinces Foggy that he should run against Blake Tower as a write-in District Attorney candidate to bring Tower's inactivity in prosecuting Fisk to public light. Yet, while campaigning, Foggy still has enough time to investigate Fisk and be lawyer for Karen and for Matt at times. In real life, campaigning is a 24/7 job. Foggy wouldn’t have had time for anything else. In addition, while Foggy's intention was "make myself so public that I'm untouchable to Fisk," in real life, it would have exposed him way too much. It would have been very easy for Fisk to get to him if his profile were to reach that level.level, as he'd the subject of a lot of scrutiny from the press. On top of that, there are so many other details of the story arc that are just incompatible with campaigning. For instance, Marci and Foggy probably would have had to get married ''immediately'' as soon as Foggy threw his hat in the ring. Also, if Foggy won, Marci would have no choice but to quit her job at Jeri Hogarth & Associates to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.interest.



*** Ultimately, Season 3 takes this case of Hollywood Law and ends up [[RealityEnsues applying reality to it]], when [[spoiler:Jimmy tips off the insurance company about Chuck's mental illness. This causes them to raise malpractice premiums on ''all'' of HHM's practicing attorneys[[note]]There's even an argument to be made that the insurance company would have inevitably found out about the illness on their own, just much later, and Jimmy just made the inevitable happen sooner[[/note]]. Howard's patience with Chuck was already growing thin, and the insurance premiums going up because of Chuck's illness proves to be the straw that breaks the camel's back between them.]]

to:

*** Ultimately, Season 3 takes this case of Hollywood Law and ends up [[RealityEnsues applying reality to it]], when [[spoiler:Jimmy immy tips off the insurance company about Chuck's mental illness. This causes them to raise malpractice premiums on ''all'' of HHM's practicing attorneys[[note]]There's attorneys[[note]]While Jimmy did this with malicious intentions, some fans have pointed out that even an argument to be made that if he hadn't, the insurance company would have inevitably found out about the illness on their own, just much later, and later; Jimmy just made the inevitable happen sooner[[/note]]. Howard's patience with Chuck was already growing thin, and the insurance premiums going up because of Chuck's illness proves to be the straw that breaks the camel's back between them.]]
Tabs MOD

Added: 185183

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* ''{{Series/Accused}}'', a British TV show where each episode opens with a person on trial (not [[AlwaysMurder always for murder]], either) and then reveals through flashbacks how they got there, contains one example. In the second episode, it's a British soldier who served in Afghanistan. Problem is, the crime he's accused of occurred ''in'' Afghanistan on a British military base, against a fellow soldier, yet he's put on trial in a civilian court back in the UK. Any crime on a military base, committed by a soldier, ''against'' another soldier, would fall under military jurisdiction and be tried by a military court.
* ''Series/AllInTheFamily'': One episode contained probably Hollywood's worst misunderstanding of Miranda rights ever. And considering how badly Hollywood usually understands that subject, that's saying a lot. In that episode, Archie is mugged and reports the crime to the police. The police catch the perpetrator and read him his Miranda rights in perfect English after the arrest. However, they have to release him because the mugger didn't understand a word of English. As stated in "Common Examples" above, that's NOT how Miranda rights work. Another episode has Archie getting arrested for possession of a weapon without a permit when he lets a policeman into his house, but the case is then thrown out of court because the officer didn't have a search warrant. The plot is meant to deliver an {{Aesop}} about why cops have limits on how they can enforce the law. A case of HollywoodLaw causing a BrokenAesop, since police officers don't need a warrant to search a home when they have the homeowner's consent to enter.
* ''{{Series/Becker}}'': It's hardly believable that the malpractice suit at the end of Season 3 would have ever seen the inside of a courtroom. First off, Vinny's poor shape and lifestyle made him a heart attack waiting to happen regardless of whether he got on the treadmill or not. In addition, Becker didn't force Vinny to start exercising...he did it of his own free will, and it's standard procedure at most gyms to sign a waiver that absolves anybody else from responsibility should a health issue occur. To add insult to injury, the plaintiff's attorney framed his case against Becker as a character assassination, which had no bearing on the suit and would have been quieted by any reasonable judge. On top of everything else, the defense attorney sleeping with one of the character witnesses was totally unethical, and it's hardly plausible that Becker would've held onto her counsel after that. Granted, the denouement of the arc ended in a SugarWiki/MomentOfAwesome in which Becker lampshaded most of these things, but the premise of the story was extremely unrealistic.
* On ''Series/{{Bones}}'', {{Diplomatic im|punity}}munity is badly abused in two cases.
** In the first, a diplomat is threatened with being returned home to be prosecuted, in which case she'll be put in prison and killed by other inmates. To avoid this, she waives immunity. Too bad for her, immunity belongs to the state, not the individual, so she can't actually waive her own immunity.
** Later, villainous hacker Christopher Pelant falsifies records to claim Egyptian citizenship, without any mention of him actually having (fake) diplomatic status. Somehow, all Egyptian tourists are diplomats now, and the Egyptian government is hot to protect a guy they just now heard of from standing trial for murder.
* From the ''Series/BostonLegal'' page. Please note that David E. Kelley is a former lawyer, and as such, he chucked realism under RuleOfFunny.
** Even non-lawyers know that lawyers can't meet with judges ex parte, and that evidence has to be relevant to be admissible.
** Once the show brilliantly lampshaded and subverted this. When a judge asked why both parties in a case were being represented by lawyers from the same firm (an impermissible conflict of interest in real life, of course), Denny said "[[BreakingTheFourthWall It saves on guest cast]]".
** One episode featured the lawyers representing the estate of a soldier killed in Iraq, under a state law fraud theory in state court due to misrepresentations by the recruiter. Everything about this is wrong: the federal government can't be sued on a tort theory in state court, the federal government can only be sued for a tort like fraud under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government is immune to tort suits surrounding military operations, the Feres Doctrine would bar the suit in any event, and the FTCA also exempts the government for causes of action that accrue overseas. All of these mistakes are in one storyline of one episode.
** Another one featured Alan's assistant refusing to pay her federal income taxes. She was charged criminally, and argued that she didn't pay because she disagreed with various government policies. Alan then asked the jury to return a not guilty verdict for that reason, and they did so. Perhaps needless to say, that's not a valid defense, such evidence would never be admitted, and Alan's argument would also not be permitted. There are many real life cases on this issue, because so many out there are eager to not pay their taxes.
** Carl Sack and Lorraine represent Nantucket, Massachusetts when they want to build a nuclear bomb for protection. Any real judge would throw that out of court instantly and then order the lawyers to be examined for mental reasons.
* An entire trial in ''Series/LALaw'' was dedicated to ridiculing the idea of a tax-protester who refused to pay his federal taxes because of silly government programs like measuring cow-flatulence etc; the jury just told him the obvious moral (i.e. "preachy message") of the story: that "the little people" only had the right to vote against policies they don't like--otherwise they should just shut up and pay their taxes (that would be the law's position too).
* Sam Puckett on ''Series/ICarly'' is arrested for assaulting an ambassador and gets off scot-free and never has to deal with the issue. RuleOfFunny obviously applies.
* ''Series/{{Columbo}}'' utilized the same Hollywood Law trope in every episode-- while also being something of a JerkAss: Columbo would basically disguise his surveillance of a suspect, by pretending to simply question the person as a witness-- ''nonstop'' throughout the episode. In this manner he would thus badger, harass and trick the suspect into revealing evidence that would eventually convict them. This is highly illegal, breaching many various civil and ethical protections against police abuse and harassment; however, even when suspects complain about Columbo's nonstop harassment in order to end it, this proved no avail, as Columbo would simply claim that it "proves" that the person is guilty, and that "he's touching a nerve." This made Columbo into more of a VigilanteMan than a policeman, since he was ''always'' right, and never incorrectly harasses an innocent person: however in reality, the law is not made to presume that the police are always right, but to protect the citizen's presumption of innocence. For evidence why this is necessary, you need only look at people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes due in part to overzealous police and prosecutors who are completely sure of their guilt.
** This fits the mold of most "{{Cop Show}}s," i.e. the police are always right, even when ''torturing'' suspects (e.g. Sipowicz in ''Series/NYPDBlue''). The moral is that it's smart to trade liberty for security, since the villain always uses his rights to get OffOnATechnicality through LoopholeAbuse.
** Columbo also had a bad habit of tampering with evidence. The way he handled evidence, there was no chain of custody and most of what he would try to admit wouldn't be permissible in court because he would just walk around, pick something up, put it in his pocket, and keep it there until he was ready to share it with the murderer.
** In one instance, Columbo is visiting the suspect -- lawyer Oscar Finch at his office. While waiting in the office for the guy to come in, Columbo takes a piece of gum out of the wastebasket. Later he shows it to the suspect, as well as the piece of bitten cheese from the crime scene.[[note]]The suspect has a very uniquely shaped canine. The impression shows up on both.[[/note]] Problems include: the wastebasket was in the office, and does ''not'' come under the 'garbage is public property' ruling; the trash has to be out at the curb, in a dumpster, etc. Also, any ''real'' forensic detective would have ''fits'' at Columbo hauling around a vital piece of evidence like that cheese like that, in a plastic bag, without even an evidence label. Broken custody chain of evidence = darn near impossible to use in court.
** It's joked that perhaps these errors on Columbo's behalf are the reason he's always been a lieutenant and never been promoted.
* ''Series/{{Dallas}}'' never handled courtroom storylines well:
** Bobby Ewing's girlfriend Jenna is forced to marry her abusive ex-husband Renaldo Marchetta, who then turns up dead, apparently by her hand. She is arrested for the murder, meets Bobby in jail, and tells him her version of what happened. During the trial, he is then called to the stand to recount for the jury what she had told him (which would be hearsay and completely inadmissible), asked his opinion of her mental state at several points in the story he's retelling (as he's not a psychiatrist, this would be irrelevant), and finally is asked whether he feels she could have committed the murder (not only was he not even there, his personal opinions are not admissible). The show explains that Bobby was called to the stand to tell Jenna's story to the jurors without her being cross-examined, which is of course why it would never have been allowed in real life. In any realistic scenario, Bobby would never have been called as a witness, as he had no testimony of the events to offer. If Jenna wanted her story told, she would have had to testify on her own behalf, exposing herself to cross-examination by the prosecuting attorneys.
** Witnesses are allowed to testify to statements the defendant made in criminal trials under a hearsay exception called "Opposing party statements" (some states don't even consider it hearsay at all). Bobby could've repeated Jenna's statements if he was being questioned by the prosecution. However, the defense in this episode is barred from using this exception, as it has to be statements made by the opposing party, and the defense is not opposing itself.
** Family matriarch Miss Ellie is tired of J.R. and Bobby tearing the family apart fighting over control of Ewing Oil, so she decides to go into court, have her deceased husband Jock declared mentally incompetent so his final will is overturned, then sell the company. During the trial, she is asked if she feels Jock was, in fact, mentally incompetent (again, she's not a psychiatrist). Her answer is (roughly) ''"I know you need me to say it, so the answer is Yes."'' Needless to say, this kind of answer would not be accepted in any court and would probably result in a tongue-lashing from the judge.
* ''Series/{{Frasier}}'' often uses the trope of "the legal victim."
** In a famous episode, Frasier and Daphne are sued by jilted super lawyer Donny Douglas, for "breach of (marriage) contract" (Daphne's last-minute refusal to marry Donny) and "tortious interference in a private contract" (via Frasier's meddling). BreachOfPromiseOfMarriage is not grounds for a suit anymore in most jurisdictions. Washington state had also ended punitive damages in suits at the time Donny sought them in his. It also could only be applied against the man who broke his promise to a woman, [[TheUnfairSex never against a woman who broke her promise to a man]]. [[note]]Because women in the days when this tort began typically did not work, they were thus reliant on men for support, and so this amounted to a promise that they would care for them financially that was broken, which is cause to sue someone in similar cases to this day. Another reason is that it was assumed they started screwing while they were engaged, which meant if she didn't marry the guy who deflowered her, she was ruined forever.[[/note]] Also, it is incorrect terminology, since Daphne had never actually ''entered'' into any contract. Donny, a lawyer, should have known he ''himself'' could be sued for doing that (it's called abuse of process). It's also not "tortious interference" for someone to urge a would-be bride to not go through with the marriage (which is not a contract by itself).
** Likewise on an earlier episode, Frasier was deliberately sold a counterfeit painting for $60,000, but is told the police "have their hands full with murders and robberies" so apparently they can't be bothered to investigate this. While it's stated that he ''could'' sue, Martin tells him that he'd end up losing more money than he paid for the painting that way. In reality the police tend to take fraud and grand theft ''very'' seriously, particularly against a rich and influential person such as Frasier, while Martin--having connections due to being a former cop--likely could pull strings to get the case handled quicker as well.
** Martin, a former police detective, also recounts a MirandaRights example, where he lied about having fully read them when the suspect actually broke free mid-way through and he had to chase him down. As shown above, the failure to Mirandize does not make an arrest invalid, and even if it did, the interruption was the suspect's fault, so he had no need to lie about it at all. Martin also says he ''saw'' the suspect shoot someone, and so his MirandaRights would be utterly irrelevant.
* ''Series/HowIMetYourMother'': Marshall had superhunk Brad (played by Joe Manganiello) as his opposing counsel in a civil suit. In the first place, Brad pretended to be interviewing for a job at Marshall's firm so he could steal their strategy for the case, which could have gotten him disbarred, and he even admitted it to Marshall after the fact. Then, somehow, the jury was made up entirely of women who were biased in Brad's favor because they wanted to fuck him. This is something that, for obvious reasons, would not be allowed to happen during the jury selection process. Finally, the judge, who is very obviously attracted to Brad, shows blatant favoritism throughout the process, and when Marshall manages to win, awards a tiny judgment. With the official record and a courtroom full of witnesses, this judge's career ought to have been blown up. The ''only'' possible explanation? Marshall is an UnreliableNarrator and exaggerated the story.
* ''Series/JaneTheVirgin'': Petra's claim that she had a right to Rafael and Jane's baby is ridiculous on the face of it and never should have been a serious legal threat.
* ''Series/LawAndOrder'':
** One episode had Jack [=McCoy=] team up with a judge to get a drunk driver convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder as part of the judge's crusade. Jack goes so far as to blackmail one witness into being out of the country during the trial and suppresses all evidence that the guy was drunk off his rocker when he committed the crime, with the judge {{DeusExMachina}}ing on Jack's behalf all the way. Fortunately, during the trial, [[WhatHaveIDone Jack comes to his senses]], and starts to show the evidence that the guy was drunk (and so was guilty of Manslaughter, but not murder). The only reason the judge didn't report Jack's abuses in the trial was because he was in as deep. In that one, at least, they acknowledge that what [=McCoy=] and the judge were doing was wrong, and it's brought up several times later on as an example of [=McCoy's=] willingness to engage in misconduct if he thinks he can get away with it. In recent years, though, lots of drunk drivers ''have'' started to face murder charges, so they could do this legally if the episode were written more recently.
** In an older episode, a guy beats his girlfriend (with her consent) to cause a miscarriage and frame the rich lawyer they intended to sue, taking careful measure to ensure the fetus was under 24 weeks old so they could avoid going to prison. Ben and the others act like there is nothing they can do and have to use all sorts of legal loopholes, never mind the original couple conspired to commit blackmail, perjury, defamation, entrapment, and fraud.
** Too many examples to list, but whenever a judge [[OffOnATechnicality tosses out evidence against the defendant]] early on during a trial to make the case that much harder for the prosecution, though the defendant will often get their just desserts in [[JusticeByOtherLegalMeans one way]] [[VigilanteExecution or another]]. However, one prominent example comes to mind:
** "Hubris": A warrant is issued to search the suspect's apartment but the courier hasn't brought it yet. Knowing the suspect will get there before the warrant, Det. Green sticks a toothpick in his lock to keep him from entering. The courier arrives a few seconds later and the police bust in and seize a videotape of the murders. The judge tosses the tape since the police secured the area before they had the warrant (even though they had reason to believe he'd destroy the evidence and were well aware the warrant had been issued). Then the judge allows the defendant to do two things he shouldn't have: call an alibi witness to perjure herself and take the stand to testify on his own behalf. Not only were the tapes admissible to cross-examine both of them but the defendant was clearly guilty of perjury considering he was [[AFoolForAclient representing himself]] and had personal knowledge he was suborning perjury. It is also ''totally'' legal to secure a scene if there's a concrete possibility that the evidence will be removed, destroyed, or otherwise endangered before the search warrant arrives. What the police ''can't'' do is start poking around, looking in drawers and such, before the warrant arrives.[[note]]As an example, if the police had strong reason to suspect that a criminal had evidence on his computer, they could secure the location and prevent the criminals from touching it. They couldn't actually fire it up and look at the contents until the warrant arrived, though.[[/note]]
** In "Patient Zero," a man is charged with killing his mistress's child (dosing them with stolen SARS virus that she survived). His wife testifies that she was with him at the time, but breaks down on the stand and changes her story a couple of times. Outside the courtroom, she admits that she was deliberately playing the jury, and the jury returns a not guilty verdict because they can't be sure what the truth is. [=McCoy=] and Southerlyn watch the husband and wife walk out of court hand-in-hand, and are apparently so bewildered by their defeat that they completely forget they have an iron-clad case for perjury against the wife. Not to mention completely ignoring the handful of felonies the husband committed in getting the SARS virus to begin with.
** In "Gunshow," the season ten premiere, a gunman opens fire on a crowd in a public park, killing over a dozen people. Once arrested, he confesses to the police. The judge in the case, however, excludes the confession on the grounds that the suspect's ''mother'' had told Lt. van Buren that she was calling a lawyer for her son, and that the police therefore had no right to continue the interview, since the suspect's right to counsel had been invoked. The problem is that the suspect was not a minor, and, as such, his mommy could not invoke his right to counsel for him. If he was properly {{Mirand|aRights}}ized, and did not invoke his right to an attorney, nor his right to remain silent, then the police had every right to continue questioning him. The only reason for this was so that [=McCoy=] would end up prosecuting the gun manufacturer instead [[note]]never mind the fact they had been immunized from lawsuits by Congress at that point[[/note]] in one of the more {{Anvilicious}} (to say nothing of asinine) episodes in the show's run.
* ''Series/LawAndOrderSpecialVictimsUnit'':
** A common example throughout the series is Olivia's constant assertion that their job is to believe the victim. The police certainly do have an obligation to treat victims sympathetically. But their job is to investigate and determine the truth, not to take victims at their word and only look for evidence that supports their claim. Several episodes show exactly why this is a bad idea, with "victims" making false accusations or at least not telling the whole truth.
*** Some episodes show the opposite side as well, when one or more of the detectives comes to believe the accuser is lying based on circumstantial evidence. A particularly striking example takes place in "Witness", in which the detectives are initially skeptical that the victim, who is known for being dramatic, is telling the truth about being raped; the episode ultimately reveals that she was telling the truth.
*** "Doubt" is actually an example where this comes up in two different forms. As soon as the report is made, Elliot and Olivia form immediate, opposite opinions as to who was telling the truth, and stubbornly cling to them. As the episode progresses, each of them is forced to admit that they may be wrong. Unusually for SVU, the episode never tells us which version of events is true, or even which one the jury believes; the entire point of the episode is to highlight the extreme uncertainty present in such a case.
** In "Crush", the DA forces Detective Benson to arrest a teenage girl on child porn charges (for "sexting" pictures of herself) in an effort to coerce her into testifying against an attacker. When she does so, the DA attempts to drop the charges, but the judge overrules her and sentences the girl to several years in prison. While the end of the episode reveals that the judge was corrupt, this has two problems. First, the arrest was an obvious case of Malicious Prosecution, which is a felony, and was one of the few cases (it's a notoriously difficult charge to prove in most jurisdictions) in which it would be an open and shut case. Second, even in juvenile court, the judge has no power to do any of that.
** SVU has far more. Best one is evidence getting tossed because the man was part of a conspiracy with a lawyer and a thug and knew where the body was. Attorney-client privilege was used to toss it. Privilege doesn't work like that, especially if it's a conspiracy a lawyer is involved with, and even more so if a third person who's not a spouse was privy to it as well. As was explicitly pointed out on the mothership, at least once.
** In "Popular", a nurse cites doctor-patient privilege in refusing to talk with Detective Stabler when she treats a middle school girl who claims her teacher raped her. Captain Cragen, Stabler's wife, and even the victim herself give Stabler grief for bothering to ''do his damn job'' and investigate the rape; even Stabler treats the whole thing like he's breaking procedure because the privilege is so sacrosanct. Doctor-patient privilege does not cover evidence of a crime: when a medical professional comes across evidence of things such as child abuse, they are ''required by law'' to report it to the authorities. A clear-cut admission from their patient would leave them with no wiggle room whatsoever for neglecting their duty in this case.
** In "Manipulated", the detectives use a facial recognition program to compare a picture taken on the street to the DMV records for driver's licenses. The judge later throws this out, claiming that the technology was too inconclusive and all the subsequent evidence was tainted. A person has no privacy expectation in a picture taken on a public street or their driver's license photo, so comparing them to each other cannot possibly be a violation of the 4th Amendment. Without a violation, the tree isn't "poisoned" and the remaining evidence is acceptable. What's more, the unreliability of the technology bears upon its admissibility at trial, but they don't need the computer match at trial--once the computer found the picture, the detectives confirmed it by the eyeball test and the suspect's admission. Even further, they already knew of the suspect because he was the husband of the victim's boss and they had an easy argument for inevitable discovery (they would have recognized him from the photo given time).
** In "Presumed Guilty", even after it was revealed that Fin's ex-brother-in-law had been stopping the attack against Fr. Shea, he is still labeled a vigilante, and the ObstructiveBureaucrat DA says he had no business assaulting someone while on parole, but should have just called 9-1-1. In Real Life, the law recognizes the difference between vigilantism, which is illegal, and defense of a third party, which is not. If you see a crime, such as a burglary or vandalism in progress, and you assault the criminal, or you assault a criminal after a crime has been committed, that is vigilantism. If, however, you see someone being assaulted, you are well within your rights to intervene, even if you literally have to fight off the assailants. (N.B. In some jurisdictions, you had better make sure the person you are helping is actually the victim.)
** One episode has Judge Donnelly take a leave of absence from the bench to prosecute a woman who had fled on a murder change years beforehand when Donnelly (the prosecutor on the original case) let her go to the bathroom and she climbed out a window. Not only does this make no sense as she no longer works for the district attorney's office (she would have had to resign when she became a judge), no judge would allow her to act as prosecutor anyway since she clearly had a personal vendetta and was a material witness to the felony escape charge.
** In "Her Negotiation", the judge declares a mistrial after it turns out the physical evidence may have been contaminated. This isn't grounds for a mistrial in real life. The defense can present it to the jury and encourage them to ignore that evidence, but the judge wouldn't declare a mistrial, especially if it was only possible, not certain, that the evidence was contaminated.
** In a later season episode, Barba charges a director with sexual tourism under the theory that he traveled to Canada to have sex with a 16 year old actress (in Canada, 16 is the legal age of consent as long as the older party isn't in a position of authority) and states to Benson that they have to prove he went there specifically for the purpose of having sex with this girl by proving he never intended to make the movie he supposedly went to audition her for. There's two problems with this. The first being that child sexual tourism is a federal crime, so Barba wouldn't be able to charge it or have Manhattan cops investigate it, he'd just have to report it to the feds. Second, according to the PROTECT Act of 2003, it's illegal for US citizens and residents abroad to have non-commercial sex with anyone under the age of ''16'', not 18, and illegal to engage in commercial sex with anyone under 18. So just having consensual sex with her wouldn't have been a violation of US federal law. Given he was allegedly their to direct a movie, however, he could have been considered in violation of Canadian federal law. However, any Canadian extradition requests would have been adjudicated in Federal courts anyway, making this still a moot point.
** In "Psycho/Therapist", William Lewis, who is defending himself and called Olivia as his witness, asks to treat Benson as a hostile witness. In real life, this means asking a witness leading questions; in the [=SVUniverse=], this apparently means being allowed to scream at a victim while quite literally foaming at the mouth. Made especially painful by the fact that Barba had been objecting almost constantly before this, but stayed silent the entire time Lewis was screaming at her, up until the end, when he feebly protests that Lewis has crossed the line, though this could have been strategy on Barba's part to show how aggressive and violent Lewis is since he'd been playing the meek victim all trial.
** Regarding the ''Franchise/LawAndOrder'' franchise, some examples ''do'' fall into the TruthInTelevision camp -- after all, police and lawyers in the real world don't always get it right either. However, others, i.e. [=McCoy=] conspiring with a judge, stretch the bounds of credibility even by real-life standards.
* ''Series/{{Matlock}}'' turned the Cornered Stool Pigeon into a Beaten Dead Horse; in every episode, Matlock would simply corner the witness with new and unaccepted evidence, which he had not previously shared with the prosecution, and basically convict the person on the spot with some ridiculous DeusExMachina.
** There was even an episode called The Juror that was basically ''Film/TwelveAngryMen'' Matlock version.
* ''Series/{{Monk}}'':
** Monk, even though he's a private consultant, would technically be considered a full-fledged law enforcement agent if the case in question is one brought to him by the SFPD.
** In "[[Recap/MonkS2E14MrMonkAndTheCaptainsWife Mr. Monk and the Captain's Wife]]," Captain Stottlemeyer is in charge of the investigation into the shooting of a tow truck driver, during which Stottlemeyer's wife Karen collided with the tow truck and was knocked into a coma. Although Leland has an interest in finding the man responsible, he would have to recuse himself from the investigation in real life because of the severe conflict of interest at hand.
** In "Mr. Monk and the Bad Girlfriend", Monk searches Linda Fusco's house and finds evidence that implicates her in the shooting of her business partner. Because Monk essentially broke in and wasn't carrying a search warrant, any evidence he found would probably be rendered inadmissible in court. The evidence in the house did lead Monk to discover a rental truck in a police impound yard that turns out to contain a fake bedroom set Linda constructed for her alibi. Due to its location, it's possible that the truck and any evidence inside it might be admissible under the "inevitable discovery" rule (since it's very likely the contents would have to be inventoried at some point).
** There's no way Roddy Lankman's cheating scheme on the game show ''Treasure Chest'' in "Mr. Monk and the Game Show" would be able to go on for as long as it did. Most game shows generally have people on set who are put there to watch for evidence of rigging and make sure the show is fair to everyone. Not to mention, ever since the quiz show scandals of the 1950s (after several contestants came forward revealing they were being coached the answers to questions), Lankman would be running afoul of federal laws that make it a crime to rig a game show. In fact, Monk's father-in-law would probably be obligated to tell the federal authorities first and then bring Monk in if they couldn't find anything.
** In "Mr. Monk and the Man Who Shot Santa Claus," Monk and the team are trying to investigate a crime scene while a crowd is jeering at Monk for his shooting and wounding of a man dressed in a Santa suit a few days earlier. At one point, someone throws an egg that hits Natalie. Stottlemeyer appropriately does get angry at the crowd and immediately has Monk and Natalie escorted away by officers for their protection. However, given the egging happened while Natalie was inside the crime scene perimeter, and given that the crowd's jeering was distracting cops inside the crime scene, Stottlemeyer could also legally have had the entire crowd arrested for interfering with a police investigation.
** In "Mr. Monk Goes to the Bank," Stottlemeyer and Disher are shown as being in charge of the investigation into a bank robbery. While the SFPD in real life would probably investigate a bank robbery so far as being first responders, taking initial witness statements and securing the crime scene, they would not be the lead investigating agency on the case; the FBI would, as banks are federally insured.
** In "Mr. Monk and the Really Really Dead Guy," the main characters butt heads with the FBI, who've been called in by the mayor to handle a potential serial killer case. This would never happen in real life as a) the FBI (and other federal law enforcement agencies) normally cannot unilaterally "take over" a case from state or local law enforcement and prevent them from investigating unless there are extremely unusual circumstances, b) the case didn't even fall under FBI jurisdiction, as a case can only fall under FBI jurisdiction if the perpetrator crosses state lines or the crime involves multiple states or interstate commerce, or is one that interferes directly with the federal government's business, none of which is the case here.
** In "Mr. Monk Is at Your Service," a car accident supposedly kills Paul Buchanan's wealthy parents, and the fortunes of their respective children are said to depend on which of them died earlier. Under California intestacy law, if a husband and wife die within five days of each other, neither of them inherits from the other, regardless of who technically died first. (Of course, if the decedent leaves a will, then this law does not apply, but any competent estate lawyer would include a similar provision in the will. In fact, many wills are far stricter, requiring the recipients to survive for at least a month before they're eligible to receive anything.)
** In ''Mr. Monk in Outer Space'', Monk proves that Brandon Lorber was already dead when someone shot him. Stottlemeyer says that officially it's no longer their case because, he says this means no crime has officially been committed. He's wrong: shooting a dead body constitutes attempted murder.
* In ''Series/NorthernExposure'', a young Jewish doctor named Joel Fleischman (Rob Morrow) goes to medical school for free, in exchange for agreeing to practice in an Anchorage, Alaska, hospital for four years. However when the contract falls through and he is released from it, he then finds that the [[ReadTheFinePrint Fine Print]] sentences him to a 15-year prison sentence, if he fails to practice for ''four'' years in the boondock town of "Cicily" instead (the legality of which is likewise confirmed by an AmoralAttorney). Such a contract is not only legally impossible, but would in fact constitute ''involuntary servitude'' under the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--needless to say this is completely illegal. Insult is added to injury, likewise, when the doctor later learns that the contract somehow binds him to ''five'' years of practice, rather than four (actually a shallowly disguised plot device to extend the series). In addition, the doctor is threatened with death by a {{Vigilante}}, if Fleischman tries to break it. In actuality, the doctor could only be subject to civil suit for damages, as well as possible revocation of his medical license; and a death threat naturally is a crime by itself. While this would sway most people, the writers clearly chose to pursue Hollywood Law (as well as VigilanteExecution) as the first in a long series of many tropes which would later characterize the series.
** Actually, it's not at all clear that the doctor would even be subject to a civil suit for damages. Personal services contracts are notoriously difficult to enforce. ''If'' the contract had a liquidated damages clause that the court held not to be excessive, the plaintiff would be able to get those damages, but that would probably be it. Alternatively, they might be able to get restitution damages, that is, the return of the money spent on his tuition, but that would be about it.
** Furthermore, the obligor of the contract was the State of Alaska, which therefore would be in breach for unconscionability and unequal bargaining-power against a lay individual with limited resources to contest the contract (Fleischman). Fleischman clearly did not agree to the terms deduced by the series, but only agreed to practice in Anchorage, not Cicely or other "under-served areas;" but the law was trumped up in order to suit the series narrative.
** The legal errors could be overlooked due to the fact that Fleischman got his legal advice from his girlfriend, who was not even a lawyer but a law student, and could have been acting under a premise that he "could have gone home at any time, but he wouldn't have believed it" (in a similar fashion to ''Film/TheWizardOfOz''). However later in the series he did consult with an actual lawyer, who declared the contract "bulletproof."
* In a British example, an episode of ''Series/RumpoleOfTheBailey'' ended with a revelation after Phyllida Trant Erskine-Brown was going to "leave the Bar" if certain offers were made; she did so by becoming a judge. Cut to a scene of her presiding over a case and giving her husband Claude Erskine-Brown a hard time; a judge would not be allowed to preside in a case where her spouse is appearing (it's a conflict of interest). This is a rare example for ''Rumpole'', which was written by John Mortimer, an experienced barrister who knew all the ins and outs of the legal system; it's probably because Claude was a regular character and Phyllida had been a regular, and the sight of Phyllida presiding over the hapless Claude was [[RuleOfFunny too good a joke to miss]].
* Another British example is ''Judge John Deed''. Shall we count the ways?
** The eponymous judicial hero allows the jury to 'reconsider' their verdict on the basis of what the accused says just before sentence is passed. [[spoiler:They change their minds and let him go.]]
** Judge Deed is sleeping with a pretty barrister, has a barrister for an ex-wife AND a barrister for a daughter (eventually). All three appear before him, with no one mentioning the clear conflict of interest at hand.
** After realizing the [[GovernmentConspiracy whole establishment is out to get him]], said Judge begins a very public crusade to get the Home Secretary (a very senior politician) fired. In fairness, the Home Secretary is a complete ratbag who takes bribes from people who arrange the murder of a dangerous witness and make [[ProperlyParanoid at least two attempts on Deed's life]]. From outside ''Deed'' looks like Hollywood Law, from inside he looks like TheLastDJ.
** After deciding that a jury has been tampered with, Judge Deed [[spoiler:decides that they should have found him guilty and, without any investigation as to jury tampering at all, puts the suspect in jail so there can be a retrial.]] The defense barrister is completely ignored, even after saying the magic words of "habeas corpus" and asking for directions to the Court of Appeal.
* ''{{Series/Seinfeld}}'':
** The series finale; Good Samaritan laws do not work that way for a number of reasons:
*** They're to ensure someone who helps an obviously ill or injured person cannot be sued later for unintentional injury or death. Even the compulsory good Samaritan laws only apply to people who are injured or ill, not being threatened by a mugger. And these crimes only require the bystanders to report the crime, not jump in and start crime fighting.
*** The arresting officer states "within reason". Random strangers stopping any crime, much less a mugging, is not reasonable, especially'' when a police officer is at the scene the entire time.
*** The punishment for violating a compulsory good Samaritan law is a small fine ($100-$300) with no jail time.
*** Regardless of how the Good Samaritan law itself is written, bringing in dozens of "character witnesses" to recount every misdeed the defendants have ever committed is still incredibly illegal under U.S. law. Character witnesses can only called in if the defense tries to use the defendant's character as a defense, which is not the case here.
*** The police officer that arrested them only did so by watching the entire robbery, doing nothing about it, and then arresting four bystanders/witnesses to a violent crime with video evidence, for not doing his job, even with a completely fictional representation and gross exaggeration of actual laws.
** In ''The Bottle Deposit'', Newman and Kramer try to return bottles in Michigan for the higher deposit. Michigan prohibits out of state bottle returns, and limits returns to $25 a piece, though this is probably justified since Kramer and Newman weren't thinking beyond getting the bottles there.
** Also in "The Bottle Deposit", after Jerry's mechanic snaps and takes off with Jerry's car [[SeriousBusiness because Jerry doesn't treat it with the care and reverence he feels it deserves]], Jerry's insurance company refuses to acknowledge that the car was stolen on the basis that he willingly surrendered the car keys to the mechanic, meaning he has no financial recourse if his car is not recovered. The police investigating it certainly think it's a theft. Then again, insurance companies are infamous for making up the most ridiculous reasons to avoid paying out a claim.
** In "The Bris", after a suicidal mental patient jumps off the hospital roof and lands on George's car, the Hospital Administrator refuses to pay for the repairs and is disgusted to the point of anger that George would be such a horrible person to try and "profit from a tragedy." The hospital is entirely at fault for the accident (roof access should be restricted just like razor blades should be confiscated), and George is well within his rights to demand they pay, even filing a lawsuit. In fact, he could provide testimony in court for the patient's family should ''they'' file a lawsuit. Of course, in this case, the administrator could have just been trying to weasel her way out of paying, and George was cowardly enough to buckle under her intimidation and not attempt an actual lawsuit, especially since she gave him the impression that doing so would make people see him as a heartless monster.
** Another episode had Kramer agree to take part in a police lineup when a cop announces that anyone who does so will get $50, and of course he's the one the witness identifies with the implication being he'll be arrested. Police lineups don't work that way. To start with they don't use random volunteers, the whole point is that the volunteers resemble the suspect. Also the witness identifying Kramer would ''not'' lead to his arrest, it would just result in the actual suspect being released barring other evidence.
* ''Series/UnitedStatesOfTara'': During the first season, Kate tries to bring a sexual harassment complaint against her boss. It's dismissed because their relationship appears to be consensual (although he does get fired), but no one seems to notice the fact that she's 15 and he's at least in his early twenties (played by an actor who was 32). Kate is stated to be 15 at least twice after she files, and the age of consent in Kansas is 16. Under the law, consent cannot be given, so it's not just sexual harassment, it's statutory rape. This would doubtless come out during the lawsuit, and he'd be prosecuted.
* ''Series/VeronicaMars'' had many of these, especially in Season 2.
** When Duncan Kane had to kidnap his daughter? Not a chance in HELL the grandparents could have gotten custody away from the biological father, even if he hadn't been from a gazillionaire family -- well, maybe a CHANCE, as 2/3 of the remaining gazillionaire family members had been investigated and/or tried for interference in the murder investigation of their daughter, because they believed their son, the father, was guilty due to a medical condition which causes uncontrollable, unpredictable and violent blackouts. Also, the mother was also from a gazillionaire family and big in their church.
** The trial of Aaron Echolls at the end of season 2 had the defense attorney asking about Veronica's sexual history and confidential medical info, then directly introduce hearsay from an absent third party (directly, as in the lawyer ''himself'' told the jury that the absent person had said X).
*** RealityIsUnrealistic. California evidence law was the first to be codified and differs in several ways from most states, especially when Proposition 8 in 1980 made a lot more fair game. If Veronica Mars's sexual history was relevant, even just to show bias, it would be allowable so long as not to prove consent to a rape. Hearsay from an absent third party may also be used on cross-examination to a witness, provided it meets certain qualifications. However that's usually a stupid idea as attacking character of a witness allows the defendant's character to be attacked. But bringing in Veronica's medical records should've brought a mistrial and sanctions (if not disbarment) against Aaron Echolls' lawyer, as those are wholly confidential.
** Speaking of Aaron Echolls' trial, it's not said why he wasn't charged, say, with kidnapping Veronica, assaulting Keith, and trying to kill them both by setting some guy's house on fire. Did the local prosecutors just forget about HOW they caught Aaron in the first place? Any sort of forensic investigation at all would have blown huge holes in the story he gave to the police (that he got into Veronica's car with her permission, she crashed, and they walked to the guy's house and called for help, after which Keith arrived and attacked him unprovoked. The homeowner, the only uninvolved witness, "mysteriously disappeared" before the trial), like, if Keith attacked unprovoked why are Aaron's fingerprints all over the gas can which started the fire? Why was there a fire in the first place? And it is somewhat unlikely that Veronica would have climbed inside and locked herself into an old refrigerator, and set it on fire. There would certainly be hair and blood inside the fridge from Veronica. There are a lot more things than that too.
* In ''Series/TheDrewCareyShow,'' Mimi Bobek originally gets a job with Drew's company by threatening to sue for "discrimination" if they refuse to hire her for wearing clown-like makeup and clothing on the job, claiming that it's "discrimination against her appearance." However, such laws only pertain to a person's ''natural'' appearance, not the way a person ''chooses'' to look-and clown make-up and clothing are obviously chosen, not natural. And, in the US, laws don't protect discrimination on the basis of general appearance (i.e. you look like a clown, you're not going to get a job-that's perfectly legal and understandable). There's a limited number of protected characteristics (race, religion, gender, etc.) that are the only ones you can't refuse to hire based on. Or if it's something protected by the Constitutionally-protected RuleOfFunny (never mentioned ''which'' constitution).
* ''Series/{{CSI}}:'' "Invisible Evidence": A patrolman stops a car for a broken tail light, arrests the driver on an outstanding warrant and a CSI finds evidence of a murder in the trunk. The judge tosses the evidence because neither the patrolman nor the CSI applied for a warrant to search the trunk. The Fourth Amendment does not apply whenever a person is being arrested in their car (covering the patrolman) and anytime a car is impounded, as the police have to inventory its contents (covering the CSI).
** Slightly different now; the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant ruled that a "search incident to arrest" at a car can only be conducted if the search is likely to turn up evidence of the crime the person is being arrested for. You can search the car of someone being arrested for DUI for alcohol bottles but you can't if you're arresting him for reckless driving for example. IF the police SEIZE the car however, an "inventory search" can be conducted at the impound lot on the grounds that the police don't want to be accused of stealing something from the car if the perp is let go.
** Of course as it turned out [[spoiler:when the CSI team re-investigate the case, searching for evidence that ''will'' be admissible, they discover that the driver was innocent -- he was being framed by the car wash employee, who planted the bloody knife in the back seat and smashed the tail light so he would be stopped.]]
* The fourth season of ''Series/{{Lost}}'' had "Eggtown", in which the flash-forwards followed Kate's murder trial. For every one aspect of the law it got right, it got three or four wrong. For a comprehensive list of all the blunders, see its page on Lostpedia. Just to start with, it takes place in California, for an ''Iowa'' murder she's accused of, and goes off from there.
** Another big one: Kate's mother suddenly has a change of heart and refuses to testify against her, which somehow destroys the prosecution's ''entire'' case. Even if she can't be convicted of her father's murder anymore, how does the loss of this testimony have any impact on all the ''other'' crimes she committed?
* ''Series/TorchwoodMiracleDay'' has the governments of the world (including the US) making major changes to the legal system almost overnight as a response to the [[DeathTakesAHoliday Miracle]]. Some of these laws are clearly unconstitutional, yet no one takes notice and nothing is heard from the Supreme Court. As an example, they [[spoiler:burn people who may be conscious alive]], which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment (deprivation of life without the due process of law) plus the Eighth Amendment (i.e. cruel and unusual punishment) at the same time, while Oswald Danes also gets the rule on double jeopardy wrong. You can't be ''tried'' more than once for the same crime. No one said your death sentence cannot be ''executed'' twice (back when hanging was the standard execution method, many first attempts failed, e.g. if the rope broke). His claim for this being "cruel and unusual punishment" would only be accepted if they could not find a method of execution that wouldn't cause him undue pain. And if they couldn't, all ''that'' means is they couldn't attempt to execute the sentence again--it would be commuted to life, but he certainly wouldn't be set free.
** Particularly since the procedure for most death sentences contain the phrase "until dead", which covers failed attempts.
* In an episode of ''Series/LittleHouseOnThePrairie'', Judd Larabee is accused of burning down Jonathan's barn. A judge is called in to preside over the case. When he arrives, he appoints Charles as the jury foreman even though Charles is the best friend of the victim. He then assigns Charles with the task of selecting a jury. Throughout the case, the judge scolds people for wasting the court's time when they try to present evidence. When the jury deliberates, they have 11 jurors who say Larabee is guilty and one juror who thinks he's not guilty. The judge then orders the one juror to stand up and explain why he thinks the man is not guilty before dismissing him from the jury. Then, he replaces the juror, but only after asking the replacement what his verdict would be. No one objects or finds any of these actions to be unusual. Not to mention all that 'conflict of interest' stuff.
* ''Series/RaisingHope'' has convicted serial killer Lucy's conviction and death sentence commuted/expunged due to police taking what was considered excessive action during an escape attempt after she was electrocuted. First of all, the court system CAN'T commute your sentence because of a guard's actions in prison, especially murder convictions. Only the state governor or US President can commute sentences. Death row prisoners who almost escape don't make the top of the list, as you'd expect. Second, Lucy should have been left strapped into the electric chair until declared legally dead--she shouldn't have been able to even try her escape. Lampshaded in season 3's "Modern Wedding" episode when Burt complains that every year "she comes back in some ''crazy way'' and messes up our lives again. It's gettin' old."
** Taken to the extreme in the fourth season episode "Adoption," when Burt and Virginia, completely unqualified, manage to stumble their way through [[spoiler:successfully]] defending an innocent man in court using every TV law drama cliche in the book.
* Short-lived FOX legal procedural ''Justice'' (2006) centered around a criminal defense firm and their cases, somehow managing to avoid many common pitfalls. It took one move for all credibility to go flying out the window: ''the prosecution calling the defendant to the stand to testify.'' Neither the judge nor the legal team objected, but every single student of US history did.[[labelnote:Why?]]The defendant in a criminal case can never be compelled to testify under the Fifth Amendment (the right against self-incrimination). Defense attorneys may have their clients testify, if the defendant has no choice and/or has material information, a solid alibi, etc., but that decision is always weighed against how badly the defendant's credibility can be destroyed by the prosecution on cross-examination. Since a lawyer cannot argue a client is not guilty if the client has admitted that he ''is'' and no lawyer will ever allow a witness to be asked a question they don't know the answer to (e.g., "Did you do it?"), the safest and most common move is to keep the defendant from testifying, no matter how much they want to, as it's more likely the defendant will somehow screw it up, alienate the jury, and/or make things worse, when all the defense attorney has to do is create reasonable doubt. Even if a defendant were set to testify at their trial, they would ''never'' be called by the prosecution as no defendant can be a witness ''for'' the prosecution (i.e., a witness against themselves). If they take the stand during their defense, the prosecution has the right to cross-examine them as a witness, but that's it. Even if a defendant pleads self-defense or insanity, they still are not a witness for the prosecution and will testify in their own defense ''after'' the prosecution has finished. If the prosecution knows the defendant will testify, due to the nature of the plea, the prosecutor will call witnesses and experts to build an argument that renders a defense claim null (e.g., a forensic expert). This is another reason why insanity pleas are much less common in real life than in court: if a defendant pleads insanity, it becomes a character trial, and the prosecution gains access to the defendant's psychological records (i.e., the defendant loses doctor-patient privilege). This for the record is why the prosecution dropped their motion to have Aurora theatre shooter James Holmes's notebook (given to a therapist, under privilege) released--Holmes pled insanity, at which point the prosecution had full access to all material documenting his state of mind. And now you know.[[/labelnote]]
* ''Series/BlueBloods''
** In "To Tell the Truth", Danny and Erin have difficulty convincing an eyewitness to testify against a gangster. To remedy this, the cops leak his location to the underworld, then [[WeWait wait for the gangsters to strike]] before swooping in to "rescue" him.
** In "Critical Condition", Jamie and his new partner, Luisa Sosa, are assigned to "Bingo Bags" -- staking out a park bench and wait for someone to take a bag of stolen goods planted there as bait. Jamie squirms over what he views as "borderline entrapment." It would only qualify as borderline entrapment ''if'' they convinced someone to take the bag--just leaving it out there is completely legal. To be fair, this is Jamie's personal opinion that we're talking about: it may be legal but it may or may not be strictly ''nice''.
** In "Old Wounds", Erin Reagan prosecutes a case where her ex-husband is the defense attorney, with no one raising any concern over just how much conflict of interest there is at hand. This also happens in other episodes, all without any comment.
** In "Protest Too Much", a young couple rob a bank, accidentally shooting a man in the process. Detective Danny Reagan is on the case. As the FBI agents investigating this point out, banks are federally insured, which means any crimes committed during the course of a bank robbery are also federal crimes, even when the shooting was done by an off-duty NYPD cop's gun (he was at the bank and got disarmed by the bank robbers), meaning it should be an exclusive FBI investigation. The NYPD might not even be on the case at all, [[RuleOfDrama but then, of course, there would be no story]]. [[note]]To be fair, the NYPD may not be the lead law enforcement agency on the investigation, although they almost certainly would arrive on scene before the first FBI agent could show up. The role of the NYPD might be to assist in taking witness statements and securing the scene. For the record, "Baggage" had a bank robbery and the FBI never appeared at all even though they should've been there.[[/note]]
*** Bank robberies in New York City are investigated by the F.B.I.-N.Y.P.D. Joint Violent Crimes Task Force
** In "Unwritten Rules", Danny gets upset with his prosecutor sister Erin when she won't press charges on a suspect identified as killing a police officer during an armed robbery because the eyewitness, an elderly woman, is shaky on it being him and she doesn't think she'll hold up. While it would still be enough to arrest him, she says to let him go. Later they tell Angelo Reed that there's another witness against him, and offer him a plea deal where he'd only do seven years in prison. Danny then "lets slip" the fact that this witness didn't identify him, and the suspect backs out at once, which is all part of their plan. He's then arrested due to the confession he signed to get the plea deal. While police and prosecutors ''can'' lie to a suspect, this does not apply to the terms of a plea bargain, and self-incriminating statements made on the promise of a deal cannot be used against them if it falls through. Very few people would make plea deals otherwise. Angelo Reed would've walked on this technicality.
** "Justice Served":
*** It's suspected that lawyer Angelo Gallo was shot because he dropped his client, a mob boss, who thought he would tell the police about killing a witness to make the case against him go away because supposedly "attorney-client privilege ends" when their business relationship does. Not even close -- attorney-client privilege applies to ''all'' past criminal activity clients admitted to (unless the lawyer themselves was a party to it). Later on it turns out that Gallo knows the details of the contract killing his client ordered, which he gives to the police. It's not made clear whether he knew about this before or after the crime had occurred, however. Assuming the latter, none of this information could be used against his client.
*** Jamie's partner officer Edie Janko is [[AttemptedRape almost date-raped]] in her apartment. She's reluctant to come forward out of fear she'll appear weak in front of fellow (particularly male) officers. Finally he convinces her to press charges. Rather than hand it off to the Special Victims Unit, whose detectives handle these sorts of crimes, Janko personally arrests the man who attacked her. This is a massive conflict of interest, as she's the one whose complaint they're arresting him on, a fact that any defense attorney would make hay out of (cue RuleOfDrama for this: it's an awesome scene for a TV show but wouldn't happen in real life).
*** Danny is shown as a juror on a murder trial. It would be practically impossible for any police detective to wind up on such a jury, much less one who investigates homicides himself. If nothing else, the likelihood of him knowing likely witnesses would disqualify him. As well, neither side would want a cop on the jury second-guessing or clarifying police procedures for the other jurors -- which is exactly what happens until Danny is kicked off the jury. Then Danny proceeds to take over the case and reinvestigate it, which no police force would likely allow, especially once it had gone to trial.
** In "Custody Battle" Frank is questioned over the fact that his daughter Erin, a prosecutor, was assigned to review the death of a suspect in the custody of his department. Frank is rightly asked if she can be objective, considering that a negative finding will reflect poorly on him as police commissioner. Like the examples above with Erin prosecuting cases where her ex-husband is the defense attorney, it's a conflict of interest to investigate matters than even tangentially have to do with a close relative, and she'd have to recuse herself.
*** This also applies to how Danny often goes to Erin when he needs search warrants. As they are siblings, the same conflict of interest rule may apply here. On the other hand, if Erin doesn't have a choice on which cases are passed to her, there may not be conflict of interest if she's prosecuting a case that Danny investigated.
*** A big example of that is "Loose Lips". Erin tries to get Russell Price indicted for beating his girlfriend to death and then trying to kill Jamie by lobbing a Molotov cocktail into his patrol car. There's a massive conflict of interest for an assistant district attorney to prosecute someone who threatened or committed a crime against a friend or relative of theirs (that is, Jamie). Admittedly, the judge at the hearing ''does'' point out that the fact that both of Erin's brothers are involved in the case (Danny as lead investigator, Jamie as a victim) could lead to Erin showing perceived bias against the accused, but Erin would have had to have someone else prosecute Price.
** Likewise, someone with Danny Reagan's record of complaints for use of force would probably not be allowed to work with the public. Even with his father being the active commissioner, Danny's actions could easily become a liability for the NYPD if someone sues him for emotional distress/police brutality/whatever.
** "Backstabbers" sees JurisdictionFriction going on between the NYPD and United States Marshals Service over the manhunt for two prison escapees. While it's never said whether the prison the two escapees broke out of was a federal prison, it's also never said if the prison in question was a state correctional facility. If the latter, the Marshals would have no involvement in the case because they work for the federal government; the US Marshals Service has no responsibility or authority over escapees from state prisons, unless the escapee crossed state lines, which the two escapees haven't.
** In "All the News That's Fit to Click", an anti-cop criminal shoots Lorenzo Colt, a reporter who happens to be dressed in an NYPD-issue windbreaker, while he's doing a ridealong with Jamie and Edie. The suspect, Michael Hicks, who has a history of violence against cops, is arrested. Colt is brought in to identify the suspect in a lineup, he refuses to identify Hicks and is let go, as is Hicks. In reality, if a victim refuses to cooperate such as refusing to identify a suspect, the state can still prosecute a suspected offender based upon other evidence. Which, for the record, the police already had, as voice recognition had proven with 95% certainty that Hicks made the 911 call that lured Colt and the officers he was riding with into an ambush.
*** From the same episode, Frank surmises (and Danny and others buy into) the suspect thought they were shooting a police officer due to the fact that Colt was wearing an NYPD windbreaker when he was shot. Now consider Hicks' hatred of cops. Most people in real life know that police officers rarely ever sit in the backseat of patrol cars. Frank and Danny use the term "cop killer" even though the victim survived with fairly minor injuries[[note]]three rounds were absorbed by his bulletproof vest and one lightly grazed his neck; he was also conscious and on the phone with his publisher within a couple hours of the shooting[[/note]]. Based upon the known evidence at the time, it should have been apparent and assumed that Colt was being targeted specifically and not mistaken for a cop -- since if the shooter's intent was to kill the officers, he probably would have shot them while they were still on the street and distracted by the reporter. Erin was the only one to properly assess the situation in that no one was killed and it was not a cop involved but a reporter.
** In "Occupational Hazards":
*** When arresting a woman that's running a fraudulent charity that's been using the NYPD emblem, Frank tells her that three other cities have arrest warrants for her and that New York will have to wait. While such a scenario could happen in real life, it'd be more likely to be the case if she was wanted for more serious charges in those other cities. Upon taking her into custody, the state of New York would have the choice of trying her there first or allowing her to be extradited.
*** Twice do characters break police protocol. For instance, when Erin was being followed by the bikers, protocol would be to call for a Radio Mobile Patrol (RMP) car to assist, rather than drive to Danny's precinct. Likewise, when the bomb suspect was at the union meeting, protocol would be to have the sector RMP car respond to assist as they would be far closer, or alternately, to call ESU in.
** In "Drawing Dead," when discussing Marcus Greene, a 14-year-old boy shot dead by a police officer, Erin informs a companion from the DA's office that the boy had a juvenile record for gun possession. The companion asks, "Aren't those usually sealed?" to which Erin replies by implying that she got them by calling in a favor. Juvenile records are sealed to the public but remain available to prosecutors, and any expungement of a juvenile record (the only means by which the record would be permanently unavailable even to prosecutors) is unlikely to occur until the person reaches age 18, and certainly not within two years after the original delinquency charge.
** In "Family Ties," Chelsea Cole, a banker who has handled kickbacks for corrupt deputy mayor Randy St. Clair says, "Where our clients' money comes from is not our concern." Actually, it is. By law, American banks are required to notify law enforcement when they find any evidence that their clients are involved in money laundering or any form of criminal activity. It's justified because as it turns out, she was the lover of the deputy mayor's aide, and they were both accomplices to St. Clair's corruption.
** In "The Road to Hell":
*** Nicky and her friends are pulled over while she's doing designated driver duty for them. An officer finds a controlled substance in the backseat[[note]]the reason he did so is because Nicky's passengers mouthed off to the cops. Since the cops were led to assume that they were hiding something, he looked them over and found the drugs[[/note]]. When they don't immediately tell him who the owner is, they all get arrested. While a field test of the drugs is done, it's done AFTER the arrest. In reality, it's required to be done BEFORE the arrest. After that, the baggie has to be tested for prints, and then the possession is construed to be where it was located, in this situation the girl behind the driver.
*** Not to mention that arresting everyone in the car -- especially before any presumptive field test was performed -- could be construed by a lawyer as a bad arrest. Proper procedure with any criminal investigation with multiple suspects in the same room/vehicle is to split up the occupants and question them, and only after Mirandizing them (and we see a more proper version of this in the same episode as Danny and Baez deal with four women who are confessing to the same murder). An immediate arrest would not be necessary if no physical or constructive possession could readily be proved. The evidence could have been vouchered and tested for latent prints.
*** A troubled boy has been stealing money from the church that Frank goes to. Frank talks to the pastor, and learns that the boy took over $3,500 from the poor box. But the vic also says that he doesn't want to press charges against the boy. The theft of $3,500 is enough to qualify for grand larceny, which is a more severe offense, and depending on the circumstances, means the D.A.'s office may be required to press charges, regardless of the victim's wishes.
** In "New Rules" and "The Art of War", two things:
*** Erin is put in charge of handling warrants for Danny's case, the murder of a deputy chief and his wife. As said before, since she and Danny are siblings, she would have to recuse herself from such a case because of the conflict of interest at hand. Furthermore, they'd be allowed to detain Mario Hunt for up to 48 hours before they'd have to release him.
*** Such a case would probably be handled by the NYPD Gang Division rather than the Major Cases Unit.
*** In "The Art of War," Danny's lead witness is killed in the hospital. In the course of the shooting, Linda is hit by a few stray bullets and hospitalized as a result. Danny continues to be assigned to the investigation. In real life, he would be required to pass the case off to someone else, again because of conflict of interest (his wife is now among the collateral victims in the case, and such a thing could cloud his judgment). He wouldn't even be allowed to stand in the same room as the shooter, out of reasonable fear that he might take his anger out on the shooter, which could jeopardize the case.
** In "Fresh Start," a man who went through the Fresh Start program has been arrested and accused of shooting a police officer. Yet the officers seem somewhat incompetent in that they don't bother to test the arrested man's hands for gunpowder residue.
*** Furthermore, where were all of the much-vaunted NYPD detectives, who SHOULD have been the ones to investigate the crime? As soon as it became known that the arrested guy did NOT shoot the cop, it's the responsibility of the ''police'', not the D.A.'s office, to find the true shooter. They didn't even consult with anyone at the NYPD. (Yes Anthony is technically from the NYPD, but it's not the same thing.)
** In "Manhattan Queens", someone is doing cannonball speed-runs around the boroughs and taunting the NYPD while doing so. Abigail Baker, Frank's secretary, says she's identified the person as Suffolk County deputy chief Salvatore [=DeLuca=], who's been repeatedly asking her out despite her turning him down. Her evidence is, in her words, the hundreds of voice messages he's left for her, the juiciest of which she says she's saved in case his gestures escalate to harassment. Most police forces, in particular the NYPD, would probably not consider that harassment, but ''stalking''. Also, for this to be happening against the Commissioner's secretary without him noticing is a bit suspicious. Furthermore, that Baker could make a positive ID on the voice should've been enough to at least have [=DeLuca=] brought in for questioning.
** In "Help Me, Help You," Erin files a complaint against her mentor, a judge who's been imposing harsh sentences on defendants tried in his courtroom ever since his wife was killed in a DWI incident (which does get said judge to realize what Erin's been trying to tell him face-to-face -- that he's been letting his grief cloud his judgment). While Erin did the right thing, and anyone can file a complaint against a judge, it usually involves people directly connected with a case. In the first scenario with the first-time offender who got the maximum sentence, the defense attorney certainly should've filed a complaint, as well as made an appeal for an Eighth Amendment violation (cruel and unusual punishment) and prevailed. Same goes for the other scenario, where evidence got tossed -- the defense attorney would've appealed.
** In "Through the Looking Glass," a reporter gets an anonymous interview with the man who set a hobo on fire in Brooklyn's Brownsville neighborhood. When told by Frank to give up the killer, she refuses, claiming she's protected by the First Amendment, which it certainly does not when other peoples' lives might be at stake.
** In "Blast from the Past," an officer named Thomas Scully is up for promotion to Sergeant. Thing is, he was acquitted in the death of a Muslim teenager [[ShootHimHeHasAWallet who was shot 61 times while reaching for his wallet in a dark apartment]]. It's mentioned that the other three officers who were with Scully were also acquitted and resigned after the trial. In real life, it'd be highly unlikely he'd keep his job, since the NYPD, like every other police department, has really strict conduct guidelines. Which means officers can be punished (up to and including loss of job) for misconduct regardless of any criminal trial.[[note]]Which was shown in a season 4 episode where an officer used an illegal chokehold on a suspect in a precinct bathroom -- he wasn't indicted, but he lost his job because he broke protocol.[[/note]] Absent something like a political connection, he'd have been let go, ''and'' he would have been blacklisted by the department. He'd be placed under a microscope and would be written up for any number of minor violations. Long story short, he'd be run out of the NYPD and probably blackballed at every other police force.
*** Not to mention that by singling out Officer Scully and subjecting him to added scrutiny beyond the promotional process, Frank would open the NYPD to civil action. Indirectly denying him the promotion or making punitive conditions prior to awarding it would practically make it a guarantee.
** From what's shown, it seems that Mayor Carter Poole was elected into office in 2011, and was successfully reelected in 2015, with this implying that mayoral elections in New York City come in the off-year before a Presidential election cycle. In reality, the mayoral election cycle in New York City happens during the off-year after a Presidential election cycle.
** In "The Greater Good," Danny is being hauled before a grand jury over his fatal shooting of Thomas Wilder. Frank refers to Danny's issue as a case of DoubleJeopardy. But Danny was never brought to trial, so double jeopardy would not apply. Furthermore, during the grand jury hearings, Nicky is on the stand and asked what Danny said to Wilder on the other end of the phone conversations. She caves in 2 seconds and not only tells them verbatim, but says it word for word in dramatic fashion. Thing is, her mom is the ADA and was there when Wilder died, so Erin should have prepped her beforehand.
** In "Family Business", Jackie Curatola is trying to locate Danny, abducted by Benjamin Walker. When the cab dispatcher is uncooperative, she threatens him at gunpoint into giving up the location of the cab Danny is in. The reason why she doesn't face any consequences for this is due to the "exigent circumstances" rule (someone's life is in grave danger), which only applies to conducting searches without warrants, not making threats against people.
** In "Love Lost", a suspects confession is excluded from evidence because he hadn't been read his MirandaRights before giving. However, he gave the confession spontaneously, so it would be admissible.
** In "Heavy Is the Head" it's said that the New York state governor can fire Frank, the NYPD Commissioner. However, only the Mayor of New York City can do this--which the show mentioned itself in a previous episode.
** "Milestones" has a police officer object to Jamie putting an injured man in their car to transport him for a hospital because it's faster than an ambulance, citing liability. Good Samaritan laws, however, immunize people attempting to help others, and a police officer would likely know it.
* In an episode of the legal drama ''Series/EqualJustice'', the attorney for a physician charged with assisted suicide does not dispute that he did it, nor does her client. Rather, they argue, as the prosecution says, that "the law is wrong." Problem is, that's jury nullification, and in reality the prosecutor would object right there, as it's unethical for a lawyer to argue that, rather than simply defending it. This one is a staple of many {{courtroom drama}}s.
* On at least two episodes of ''Series/DueSouth'', confessions for murder are forcibly extracted at gunpoint. Said confessions would be totally worthless in court, no matter how many people witnessed it (any competent defense attorney would simply claim that their client would have been willing to say just about anything if it would get their accuser to put the gun away, assuming the judge didn't just rule that a confession made under obvious duress is inadmissable in the first place). On one occasion the person holding the gun was herself a police officer, and should have known better (not to mention gotten in a lot of trouble for doing it in the first place).
* In ''Series/OrphanBlack'', it's believed by everyone involved that [[spoiler:human clones secretly created using a patented biological technique are legally the slaves of the patent holders, who can do anything they want to them]]. The multiple problems with this are explained in detail at the work page, but let's just say here that [[spoiler:intellectual property law]] does not work like that. It might be explained away as the bad guys taking advantage of the characters' legal ignorance to intimidate them, but one of the protagonists is an [[spoiler:academic biologist]] who really ought to know this stuff.
* ''Series/BreakoutKings'' had a lot of this. First of all, the US Marshals' Service does not have the authority to reduce a prisoner's sentence by one month, or at all. This may seem shocking, but prison sentences are actually legal rulings imposed by courts of law, and cannot be altered by an agency of the executive branch (the US President could theoretically commute their sentence or pardon them ''if'' they're convicted of federal offenses, but see here--[[note]]It's not that a deal of some sort to shorten a convict's sentence could never happen at all, but it would be much more involved than what is depicted on the show.[[/note]]). Secondly, the Marshals' service is part of the federal government, meaning that it has no responsibility or authority over state prisoners, but at least one of the convicts on the team, Shea, was in a state prison--Ossining, or Sing-Sing. Also, many of the runners the team chases are shown escaping from state prisons (Marshals take over when a state prisoner flees across state lines, but not before).
** Also, in the episode "SEAL'd Fate" in season 2, the plot turns on a private military contractor firm that was hired to carry out covert ops by the US government, one of which turned out to involve the commission of war crimes. At the end of the episode, the runner, who was an employee of the company who broke out to expose the company's culpability, was taken out of the Marshals' custody by the CIA. The CIA is barred by statute from arresting anyone on American soil, or conducting any kind of operations whatsoever domestically. Also in that episode, the Marshals were locked in the company's offices when the runner broke into the building; after this, the Marshals just walk away. Again, shockingly, it's actually a crime to imprison law enforcement officials (or anyone actually, outside some obvious exceptions) against their will. For some reason, the Marshals act like there is nothing they can do about this. That whole episode was obnoxiously idiotic.
* ''Series/PersonOfInterest'':
** In the season four premiere, Reese (in his new persona as a detective), doesn't bother with filling out the paperwork justifying his shooting a drug dealer because he didn't fire ''his'' gun. Even though the circumstances behind the shooting are easily justifiable (the guys he shot were trying to rob and kill him), this is a no-no. It doesn't matter if a cop shoots his attacker with his own gun or the perp's gun, what matters to the department is that the cop shot somebody, and that has to be legally justified--every officer is put on leave until Internal Affairs clears it.
** In "Wingman", Reese stops a suspect through shooting him in the knee (as is his signature). It's different now, Fusco points out, because he's a detective. Their captain rightly chews him out, but no one mentions that the NYPD could be sued, not to mention the injured suspect filing an excessive force complaint, quite possibly even a civil rights violation. Also, since Reese has already done this ''three times'' in a month, he should not even be back to work since Internal Affairs would have taken away his gun and he'd be on leave until cleared (not likely in this case) as it says above.
** What makes both of these really egregious is that in earlier seasons it was played more realistically -- Carter lost her detective's shield between the second and third seasons because a DirtyCop stole the evidence that justified a shooting she was involved in before IA arrived to investigate.
* ''Series/TheGoodWife'': Peter's first day back in the State's Attorney's office comes with this insane declaration: no plea bargains. Something better than 95% of all cases are pled out before a trial these days, independent of jurisdiction. This is in part because it's much less work to not have to fight a case out in front of a jury. The show itself is consistent in showing how much work is cut off for both sides when a plea is taken. So, while saying on one hand that the amount of hours the staff can work is being cut, he enforces a new policy that would exponentially increase the amount of work needed.
** In "Dark Money", the firm has some evidence excluded because it was obtained from illegally hacking into a computer. However, the exclusionary rule applies only to illegally obtained evidence the government (or someone working on their behalf) collected and attempts to submit for a ''criminal'' case. They are not government employees, and this was civil. The judge could therefore not exclude this, though he ''would'' likely inform the police and they might face charges.
** In another episode, it comes out that Kalinda had falsified evidence to get Carey acquitted, and that Diane had presented that evidence to the court, but with no knowledge that the evidence was false. The show acts as though Diane's good faith was not a defense; at one point, Diane says that what she has done is "strict liability." In modern times, there actually are now some strict-liability crimes, but they are rare, and suborning perjury is not one of them. Her lack of knowledge that the evidence was fake is actually a complete defense for her. The show was relying on RuleOfDrama, obviously.
* One of the plot arcs in ''Series/ModernFamily'''s fourth-season finale, "Goodnight Gracie", which follows the whole cast to Florida in the wake of Phil's mother's death, has Mitchell accompanying Gloria to court to answer an old charge against her ... and deciding he likes getting back into the courtroom, so he winds up representing just about everyone else there. While the episode figures into his character arc because it leads him to conclude he wants to get back into litigating cases in court again, it's extremely unlikely that a Florida judge would let a lawyer from California, presumably not a member of the Florida bar, just up and represent clients before her. An out-of-state lawyer can be allowed to represent a client temporarily (called ''pro hac vice'' or "for this purpose") but it would be very likely only one at a time.
* ''Series/WonderWoman2011Pilot'':
** Claiming someone engages in illegal activities without proof is called slander and could easily get someone sued. Wonder Woman calls a press conference to announce this, fully acknowledging her lack of proof, and yet suffers no consequences. She also admitted to the entire world that she has broken the law to stop a crime she can't even prove was committed.
** Doesn't even touch the detective's blatantly illegal (not to mention stupid) advice to WW that if she breaks into the villain's lair, the police will be able to investigate it because it's now a crime scene. Yes it will be, for a crime ''that Wonder Woman committed'', and ''the police let her do''. The only way this works is if Wonder Woman already has blanket immunity to prosecution, which opens a whole new can of worms that's even more terrifying, but would be sadly consistent with everything else we see. Also, if she's deemed to have been an agent of the police in doing this, any evidence they find will be suppressed.
** Worse, matters legal get ''significant'' attention in this series (it is Creator/DavidEKelley writing it, after all). It all serves to keep before us ''exactly'' how illegal every single thing Diana does is, even as the plot treats her like everything she does is right. She ''literally'' commits more crimes than her enemies.
** The show seems to think that because Wonder Woman is not officially connected to any law enforcement agency, she is above the law. That's actually the opposite from the truth, as law enforcement officers have quasi-immunity, while civilians have none.
** Her ex-boyfriend is assigned to investigate her for illegal activities, despite the fact that this is clearly a conflict of interest. At the end, he drops the investigation and declares her clear with a smile, thus showing ''why'' conflict of interest is a problem in the first place.
* In the fifth episode of ''Series/TheFlash2014'', "Plastique," the army, under [[ComicBook/CaptainAtom Gen. Wade Eiling]], shows up early on to take over the investigation from the Central City police. This is of course a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of the US Army to enforce the laws of the states (unless authorized to do so for a specific situation by an Executive Order or act of Congress).
** Numerous criminal metahumans are imprisoned at Star Labs over the course of Season 1. However, they lack any authority to do that, therefore this is illegal imprisonment for which they could be prosecuted and sued. Even when it's revealed, there are no legal consequences. It helps that Iron Heights got modified for metahuman prisoners.
** In the real world, police officers involved in shootings are typically placed on administrative leave while the shooting is investigated. Nothing of the sort happens to Joe.
* ''Series/ThePractice'': Creator David E. Kelley, despite himself being a lawyer, gets lots of details wrong (or perhaps discards them for [[RuleOfDrama dramatic purposes]]).
** In "Line of Duty", Bobby learns from his prosecutor girlfriend that the police will be raiding a drug house--one which his drug dealer client runs. So he warns the client to get out, and all but tells him there is not only an informant in his organization, but also his name. Instead of fleeing said drug dealer client was packing up when the police arrived, and four officers were murdered, plus their informant. When the police discover what he did, Bobby is charged with reckless homicide, and in his defense he argues that his legal duty to represent the client covered warning of an impending arrest. The judge agrees. Not even close. Though attorneys must zealously represent all clients, this has to stay within the bounds of the law. Unsurprisingly, warning your client that he was about to be arrested isn't just illegal, but makes you an accessory after the fact to his crimes. It's also really unlikely that he would be charged with only reckless homicide, since that warning caused four cops to be killed, and that of the informant (remember, tipping him off was accessory after the fact) meaning he could be convicted of {{felony murder}}. The judge dismisses the case because she can't be sure of what Bobby was thinking when he tipped off his client. However, there is more than enough evidence for a trial, and such issues must be left up to the jury. The standard for ordering a case bound over for trial (probable cause) is much lower than to convict someone (beyond a reasonable doubt).
** In "Civil Right" Eugene attacks an alleged rape victim's testimony by pointing to what she wore on the night of her date with his client, implying that as she was in a revealing dress, she was [[SlutShaming "asking for it."]] This is forbidden by the Massachusetts rape shield statute, however [[https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleII/Chapter233/Section21B]] (with some exceptions that do not apply here). This appears to be Eugene's ''go-to'' strategy when defending clients in rape cases, as we see him utilize the same tactics with another case near the end.
** The attorneys are frequently seen holding conversations with the witnesses or accused while they're on the stand, without any line of questioning. This is even [[LampshadedTrope lampshaded]] in "The Case Against Alan Shore" when Alan calls the firm out for this and asks if the judge is going to say anything, but receives no response.
** In "Checkmate" Joey Heric, the defendant who is going ''[[AFoolForAClient pro se]]'', gets called as a witness by prosecutor Helen Gamble. The judge allows it over his entirely correct objection that this violates the Fifth Amendment because he "opened the door" by saying he killed the victim in self-defense during his opening statement, which is supposedly testimony. This is not the case however, and no reasonable judge would permit it. Any subsequent conviction could be overturned.
** Bobby and Helen are in a relationship while both are still taking cases against each other. Later Lindsey and Helen are housemates and close friends while doing the same thing. In both cases, it would be unethical due to the potential bias they could have towards each other. Though it's unclear if the judges know of this sometimes, they never bring it up among themselves either until one case where Judge Hiller says it would be fine while in reality, they ''don't'' allow this.
** Lawyers are frequently shown having ''ex parte'' meetings with the judges privately in their chambers without opposing counsel present. True, it still happens sometimes, but often it's arranged right in front of the opposing counsel without objections.
* The trial in series 2 of ''{{Series/Broadchurch}}'' has by the broadcast of the second episode been criticized for its great inaccuracy, mostly to increase the drama. Most glaringly multiple witnesses sit in the audience of the murder trial, but the defense bullies Mrs. Latimer and Ellie to an extent that would be severely reprimanded in real life, and [[spoiler: the killer's confession is dismissed far too easily]].
* ''Series/HowToGetAwayWithMurder'': The main student characters are all first year law students. In the United States, first year law students aren't allowed to work more than twenty hours per week if they're full time students -- it's a rule in place by the American Bar Association to allow the students to focus on their educations. Obviously though, following that rule would lead to less drama for the show, so TropesAreNotBad.
* ''Series/NoOrdinaryFamily'':
** Teachers aren't allowed to arbitrarily change grades on formal exams from B to F without providing some pretty strong evidence. Doing that and officially entering it into the system (almost certainly without following procedure) is a crime just as serious as hacking. It's like lawyers don't exist or something...
** It's also pretty safe to say that teachers do not have the ability to arbitrarily hand out and take away scholarships.
** George claims he's responsible for the crimes of a gangster due to [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability vicarious liability]] as he screwed up a previous case when the guy got {{off on a technicality}}. This only applies to a superior being responsible for the acts of their subordinate (most often employer-employee). George is a prosecutor, and may be rusty on civil liability or just making a metaphorical point, but what he says isn't accurate either way.
* ''The Slap'', at least in the American version, involves a criminal prosecution in New York City of a man for slapping a misbehaving child, which slap resulted in no permanent injury. Two police detectives are assigned to investigate the case, an Assistant District Attorney brings charges, and two separate judges allow the case to move forward without dismissing the case out of hand. In real life, the idea that the NYPD, the largest municipal police department in the United States, would waste the time of not one but two detectives to investigate the slapping by an adult of a misbehaving child where there was no actual injury, or that a New York ADA would actually prosecute in such a case, does not pass the laugh test. If it did happen, almost any judge would dismiss the case as a waste of the court's time. Note also that the series makes no mention of a grand jury, which the defendant has a right to in New York; it is unlikely that you could find twelve jurors, even out of twenty-three, the maximum allowable size of a grand jury in New York, who would vote to indict in a case of this sort. If he ''were'' prosecuted, most likely it would only be for a misdemeanor assault, where grand juries are not required. Misdemeanor assault in New York is punishable with up to a year in prison and/or a fine of $1,000. The parents might sue him as well.
** Indeed, in a subsequent episode, there is much discussion of a civil suit, with experienced lawyers talking as if the plaintiffs would have some chance of winning a significant judgment. In reality, damages in an intentional battery case are limited to 1) economic damages, i.e. medical costs and lost wages, 2) non-economic compensatory damages, e.g., pain and suffering, and 3) punitive damages. Since the victim suffered no real injury, there were no medical expenses, and, as the victim was a child, no lost wages, there can be no economic damages; the parents claimed psychological damages requiring therapy, but it is unlikely that they could prove such damages. Since the injury was just an open-handed slap to the face, pain-and-suffering damages would not amount to much either. Pain and suffering are impossible to quantify precisely, but lawyers have been known to ask juries how much money they would demand before agreeing to undergo the same injury; maybe you'd get a couple of hundred dollars for that. As for punitive damages, those ''can'' be extremely high, but a) trial judges will usually reduce them if they seem excessive, and b) the Supreme Court has stated in strong dicta that punitive damage multipliers in excess of single digits are violations of substantive due process, meaning that any punitive award in substantial excess of the compensatory damages would be overturned as unconstitutional. As such, the most the plaintiffs could get would be a couple of thousand dollars,[[note]]which the defendant could easily afford[[/note]] assuming the jury was willing to give them anything. Given such a small possible recovery, it is unlikely that they could have found a lawyer willing to take the case.
* ''{{Series/Extant}}'': When the Sheriff of Vaspar Island refuses to search for Ethan because he is a Humanich, John punches him in the face. However, instead of facing charges and jail time for assaulting a police officer, he only spends a few hours in a holding cell before being released. While no one ''has'' to file charges, it's pretty unlikely he wouldn't. Police don't like people punching them.
* In ''The Royals'', it is eventually revealed to the whole world that Liam and Eleanor are not the children of King Simon, meaning that Queen Helena had an affair; it is then revealed that she and Prince Cyrus deliberately arranged the revelation to prevent Liam from becoming the regent after Simon is nearly killed and left in a coma. There are two problems: first, the show seems to ignore the fact the Helena has just been publicly exposed as having committed high treason. Second, the show acts as if this will somehow stop the abolition of the monarchy that Simon had set in motion. If anything, further scandal attaching to the monarchy, and the fact that the publicly beloved King Simon was no longer heading the family, would if anything make Parliament more likely to pass the bill for the abolition referendum that Simon had called for. The regent does not actually have the power to veto bills passed by Parliament; the king or regent only signs them out of respect for tradition. Shockingly, the British monarchy is just a figurehead with no real power. No monarch has vetoed a bill for over three centuries.
* ''Series/{{Sherlock}}'': In "Many Happy Returns" one character explains his theory that Sherlock was a juror on a murder trial in Hamburg, Germany. Germany does not employ a jury trial system for any criminal or legal case. While there are lay judges and professional judges rendering verdicts in a number of criminal cases, the episode portrays the system as an American style jury system, which is factually incorrect.
* ''Series/IZombie'': The show has gotten flak for a number of Hollywood Law moments, particularly Liv investigating the case, and interviewing suspects, despite her lack of legal authority, Clive's tendency to make {{empty cop threat}}s, and the lack of lawyers being present during most interrogation scenes.
** In the eighth episode of the first season, Peyton, who works for the DA's office, gets Major out of jail by telling one of the officers that, because the paperwork had not been time-stamped, continuing to hold Major would violate "habeas corpus statutes." There actually are federal statutes relating to the writ of habeas corpus, but habeas corpus itself is a common-law writ, not a statute. Also, simply failing to stamp a form would not violate the writ. Habeas corpus would allow Major to petition a court to require the police to show that they have valid cause to hold him. It would not require his immediate release. [[JustifiedTrope Justified]] in this case, however, because Peyton was actually just fast-talking the officer to get Major, her friend, out of jail.
** Season two episode "The Whopper" has Blaine's father's will revealed to be a VideoWill. Video wills are invalid and will not be probated. Under Washington state's statute of wills, all wills have to be in writing; Washington, like a few other states, does allow nuncupative wills in limited circumstances, but no more than a thousand dollars can be disposed of by nuncupative will, not the billions seen here, and, in any case, the video will here still did not comply with the requirements for nuncupative wills.
* The series ''Series/TwoAndAHalfMen'' sets up the series premise with the most egregious case of HollywoodLaw, when Alan's disgruntled divorce lawyer (Heather Locklear) exacts personal revenge on Charlie by deliberately giving Alan's ex-wife everything possible in the divorce settlement-- ''right in front of Alan.'' Not only would this be non-binding due to legal ethics violations, but a client can overrule an attorney at any time, or simply fire them; they don't have ''carte blanche'' to do as they please over a client's objection. [[RealityEnsues Which is what Alan naturally does]] but now has to find a new lawyer and still has to pay the previous ones bills. In reality, he not only wouldn't have to pay, but could sue her for this. Not to mention have her disbarred.
* In the ''Series/{{NCIS}}'' episode "Semper Fortis", a retired Navy corpsman renders first aid to three people she found in a nasty car crash, saving the lives of two of them, and is promptly arrested for practicing medicine without a license (the show claiming that despite going through essentially the same medical training, a retired Army medic is considered a trained and licensed EMT, but a retired Navy corpsman is not). However, Virginia (the state where the accident happened) has a Good Samaritan Law on the books which covers attempts to provide medical assistance in life-threatening emergencies, which means that even if she doesn't have a license, what she was doing was entirely legal.
** In the Season five episode "Lost and Found", a Cub Scout is discovered to have been reported as kidnapped by a non-custodial parent years previously. Later investigation also connects the boy's father to a convenience story robbery gone bad that resulted in a dead clerk. Gibbs and company eventually clear the man of the armed robbery and murder charges, but that doesn't change the fact that if a court takes custody of a child away from a parent and assigns it to someone else, taking the child back is kidnapping a minor, which is a serious crime. There is no way that NCIS would legally be allowed to just turn the kid over to a man who had been stripped of his custodial rights and his wife, who is not the child's biological mother, and send them on their way. The fact that the couple in question had apparently been good parents to the boy and the boy's legal guardians (maternal grandparents) were long dead might count in their favor at a Child Services hearing (assuming the father avoids jail time), but it would be Child Services, not NCIS, who would determine what happens to the child in a case like this, and the most involvement they get shown having in the episode is Director Shepherd saying "It's late on a Friday, everyone at Child Services has probably gone home for the weekend, the kid can stay at my place until they get back on Monday" (which is probably not correct procedure and could get her in trouble).
* ''{{Series/Heroes}}'': In "Ink" Peter Petrelli, a paramedic, is sued for injuring a man by dislocating his shoulder while rescuing him. This turns out to be false, but in any case there were no grounds to sue in the first place: the Good Samaritan Law immunizes any person who accidentally injures someone when attempting to help them from liability.
* ''Series/FranklinAndBash''. Like, the ''whole thing''.
* ''Series/OurMissBrooks'': In the (television) episode "Hospital Capers", a lawyer (a literal ambulance chaser) gets Mr. Boynton to sign a contract hiring him as counsel--the contract features a hefty penalty if Mr. Boynton chooses to terminate his representation. When Miss Brooks visits the lawyer, he hands her ever larger magnifying glasses to [[ReadTheFinePrint read the contract's fine print]]. {{Lampshaded}} when the lawyer admits to Miss Brooks that he's been disbarred in several states.
* ''Series/TheWire'': Averted, in the MontageOut out of the final episode, we see that Pearlmann and Daniels have both moved on to careers as a judge and lawyer, respectively. The only problem is that they're lovers and he's trying a case in her court, so she has to recuse herself.
* ''Series/AustinAndAlly'' is pretty egregious when it comes to minors and contracts. The protagonists are teenage pop singers in an AdultsAreUseless setting. In one second season episode, Allie is "signed" to perform as part of a group. The adult running the group claims to "own" her thanks to the contract she signed. At no point is the fact that both Allie and her manager are minors and cannot sign contracts for themselves brought up. It comes up other times where a record producer will offer to "sign" a character on the show, but since it's only an offer, it can be assumed the actual signing is done by parents with lawyers present.
* Both subverted and inverted in the comedy series ''The Grinder'' where Dean, an actor who played an attorney for eight seasons, joins his family law firm thinking he can do it for real. The running gag of the series is Dean constantly coming up with ideas on cases based on what his series did and his lawyer brother Stewart has to explain that in real life, that doesn't work. It's inverted as often, Dean's ideas do work out simply because they're so wild (and judges often willing to look the other way due to his celebrity).
* ''Series/LastWeekTonightWithJohnOliver'' had Creator/JohnOliver, on the eve of the 2015 Canadian Federal Election, playfully and preemptively paying a $5,000 fine for violating a Canadian law of being a foreigner inducing voters in Canada with a big comic production with Creator/MikeMyers urging voters to not vote for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The amused officials at Elections Canada explained the next morning that inducement must involve material goods like money and a foreigner simply stating an opinion is perfectly acceptable.
* Happens all the time in ''Series/{{Arrow}}''. One obvious example from the first season is the VillainOfTheWeek arranging for a lawsuit against him to be judged by a man whose reelection campaign he funded and everyone acting like this guarantees his victory rather than guaranteeing the verdict being overturned on appeal due to the judge having a conflict of interest.
** In season 2, Laurel Lance is the prosecuting attorney for Moira Queen's trial. This should never happen because the conflict of interest would guarantee any conviction would be overturned on appeal, considering not just that she is the ex-girlfriend of Moira's son (who publicly cheated on Laurel with her sister, leading to said sister's death) but also the fact that her boyfriend was one of the victims. In fact, even the fact that the trial was in Starling City is suspicious. In the real world, there probably would have been a change of venue, because it would be impossible for Moira to get a fair trial in the city she tried to destroy.
* In ''{{Series/Shark}}'', Sebastian "the Shark" Stark (James Woods) was a defense attorney who quit and became a prosecutor after a client he got off on assault charges against his wife murdered her. Problem is, a defense attorney can't just quit while representing a client who's facing charges (as here). It's RuleOfDrama, clearly.
* ''Series/TheMentalist'': About 80% of the cases Jane closes would be thrown out of court in real life because he used some form of coercion or intimidation to get a confession and/or reveal the location of key evidence (in particular, the episode "Blood in, Blood Out" would really have ended with the killer walking and Jane, Rigsby, and Cho being brought up on assault charges).
** Not to mention how many times they handle evidence without properly documenting it or handling it with gloves. A defense lawyer would've had a field day with how much they contaminated the crime scenes.
** In "Red Listed", it is revealed that, due to Jane's antics on cases, a few criminals ended up being acquitted or having their cases dismissed.
** In one episode a hitman--a psychopathic, sadistic hitman who had been killing for years, no less--is released on the technicality that Jane uncovered the evidence leading to his arrest by illegally breaking into his apartment, thus forcing the judge to declare all subsequent evidence Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. This would never work in RealLife and would, at worst, have led to a new trial, if that; the evidence itself included video tape of the murder, a confession, and entrapment of him being hired by Van Pelt to kill somebody. Such a sociopath would never be released so easily.
*** {{Justified}} in a sense. At that point, still halfway through the episode, the judge remains one of the possible hitman contractors, so the writers don't want to clinch the real culprit right away.
** The season 4 premiere takes the cake though; Jane has murdered a man he believed to be Red John, and he is let off because he convinces everyone that the man ''was'' Red John. In fact, this and later episodes frequently say that if the guy ''wasn't'' Red John Jane is going to prison for the murder. In RealLife, whether or not the man was Red John should be irrelevant--Jane committed murder, and admits to it, with numerous witnesses to the crime. He should go to jail regardless. The only possible way out is if he was found [[InsanityDefence temporarily insane]] thanks to confronting the man he believed to be his wife and daughter's killer, but that is unlikely since he was illegally carrying an unlicensed gun (specifically to kill Red John), and had announced repeatedly to colleagues and others that he was hunting Red John not to arrest but to kill him. On the flip side, the question of whether or not the man ''was'' Red John should have been irrelevant--the issue would be whether Jane ''thought'' he was with fair reason, and he can reasonably (and truthfully) claim that the man he killed both pretended to be Red John and knew things only Red John would have, and was an accomplice posing as him, which means there was fair reason. Here, at least, they appear to think the jury will refuse to convict him if it's Red John he killed (with reason--he was previously acquitted for killing a ''different'' man he mistook as Red John) since they'd be highly sympathetic to him as Red John murdered his family. This is jury nullification, which, though legally iffy, does occur.
*** This one is mentioned in-episode. Jane's legal strategy is basically to paint the dead guy as the AssholeVictim he was [[note]]apart from the Red John connection, it was discovered that he and his wife had been holding a teenage girl captive[[/note]] and hope that that, combined with an even remotely plausible excuse (the temporary insanity defense), would be enough to make the jury acquit, even if they technically ''should'' have convicted on the evidence, because the defendant (Jane) is more sympathetic and likeable than the victim. It works.
* ''Series/{{Daredevil 2015}}'':
** "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E9SpeakOfTheDevil Speak of the Devil]]", Matt Murdock goes to the art gallery owned by Wilson Fisk's girlfriend Vanessa Marianna to see how much she knows about Fisk's operations. The visit goes sideways when Fisk himself shows up, and there is a lengthy and tense conversation between the two archenemies. Since Matt is the opposing counsel on a case that Fisk is involved in (a tenancy dispute in a building Fisk recently purchased from a slumlord), this interaction is completely inappropriate. Matt knows Fisk is represented by counsel, so ethically, he can't reach out to Fisk directly; he'd have to go through Fisk's lawyers first. This is lampshaded by Fisk, who comments, "Although we probably shouldn't be talking. I believe we're on opposite sides of a tenancy case." (There's a proper aversion of this in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S2E10TheDevilInTheBox The Devil in the Box]]", when Matt visits Fisk in prison, and he has to sign a waiver with Fisk's lawyer before he can sit down with Fisk).
** Brett Mahoney ostensibly gets a promotion midway through season 2 for capturing Frank Castle, ostensibly going from "Sergeant" to "Detective sergeant," and transitioning from a uniform to plainclothes suit-and-tie. In the NYPD, that's not a promotion, but a lateral transfer - Brett's rank actually is still Sergeant, but he's now the supervisor to a squad of detectives in the Detective Bureau rather than a group of ten to twelve uniformed cops in the Patrol Bureau. This does slightly line up with the comics, where Brett is a Detective instead of a patrol officer. Also, the rank title isn't "Detective sergeant," but "Sergeant - Supervisor Detective Squad". In season 3, he's officially ranked as a Detective with a Detective's shield, which would be a ''demotion'' as Sergeant is a supervisory rank while Detective is the same rank as Patrol Officer.
** The trial of Fisk's assassin John Healy seems to happen within a week of the original crime, given that Ben Urich's subway line piece, discussed early in the episode when Healy has just been arrested, is visible in the issue of the ''Bulletin'' on his desk when Karen visits his office at the close of the trial. Murder cases, if not plea bargained, are seldom heard in less than a year after the event. However, it is clear that Fisk had bribed and/or intimidated a number of the jurors, and it is also heavily implied that he may have also bribed the district attorney and prosecutors to fast-track Healy's trial. Why neither Matt or Foggy thought the unusually fast turnaround time was suspicious is another question.
** A justified example: in "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S1E5WorldOnFire World On Fire]]", Detectives Christian Blake and Carl Hoffman, two corrupt cops working for Fisk, shoot and kill a Russian thug in a precinct interrogation room for speaking Fisk's name. If it weren't for the fact that Fisk has the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau in his pocket, Blake and Hoffman would have been placed on modified assignment and administrative leave while an investigation was conducted into their actions. Because of Fisk's connections, Blake and Hoffman remain on active-duty, allowing them to participate with the other corrupt cops to kill the survivors of Fisk's bombings of the Russians' hideouts. It's lampshaded by Ben Urich when he sees Blake and Hoffman assuming command of the scene where Matt has holed up with Vladimir and a police officer who stumbled upon them, and comments "Detectives! I'd thought IAB would have you riding a desk after that thing with the Russians at the station", to which Blake says "You see what's going on here? No one's riding a desk tonight."
** On a sidenote, Blake and Hoffman giving orders at the standoff. NYPD Detectives are at the same level in the chain of command as regular Patrol Officers, and technically can't give orders to anyone but junior detectives. Only those in the supervisory ranks (Sergeant and upward) can give orders to other cops. Then again, they and many of the other cops in their precinct are on Fisk's payroll, so they probably know that they're breaking protocol.
** In season 1, Marci Stahl could have faced disbarment for handing over confidential work product. However, lawyers have an obligation not to participate in crimes and to tell the police if they have reason to believe their client will commit a crime. Landman & Zack has failed in both obligations (by not reporting that they are doing legal business for Wilson Fisk and not reporting his crimes to the cops), and it's her responsibility, legally, ethically, and professionally, to hand over all the information she can to the proper authorities. That she handed that information over to the lawyers on the opposing counsel (one of whom she used to have a romantic relationship with) is ''very'' questionable, but the New York Bar Association probably gave her a free pass given how extensive Fisk's corruption of the legal system went.
** Fisk is incarcerated at Riker's Island in season 2. However, that is a state correctional facility. In real life, Fisk would probably be housed in a federal penitentiary, maybe even on death row, especially given that many of Fisk's crimes in season 1 were federal offenses, such as the bombings of the Russians[[note]]Since 9/11, the bombs would be considered as weapons of mass destruction[[/note]]; racketeering and money laundering (which fall under RICO statutes), and capital FelonyMurder charges (for each of the FBI agents killed by Fisk's mercenaries during their ambush on the convoy).
** Because the NYPD does not allow real-life precinct numbers to be used in works of fiction, the police station shown in this show and ''Series/JessicaJones2015'' is designated as the '15th precinct'. Hell's Kitchen is actually serviced by the Midtown North precinct.
** The botched sting using Grotto as bait for the Punisher. Reyes appears to give orders to the ESU to shoot to kill when they open fire on the Punisher, while the Punisher is busy fighting with Matt. The goal of the ambush is to kill Frank Castle, not arrest him. This is a blatantly illegal attempted extrajudicial killing. The circumstances under which the police are allowed to use lethal force do not include “because he did some bad stuff before.” While defense of others (Grotto) could be used as a justification, the police opened fire before that was established. Furthermore, the operation was overseen by Reyes. In real life, the police department and the prosecution are separate entities, explicitly for this reason.
*** In real life, Reyes would be lucky if she just got disbarred for this. Using a man as bait for a killer is illegal, as is misleading said guy's defense attorneys. Nelson & Murdock arguably would have a case to file a wrongful death suit against Reyes and probably would have prevailed, and that probably would've gone down if, well, Frank's trial didn't come in the way.
** The ''People of the State of New York v. Frank Castle'' [[http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/06/14/daredevil-season-2-part-1/#more-2805 is an]] [[http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/07/10/daredevil-season-2-part-2-the-trial/ exercise in this trope]]:
*** After Frank is arrested, Matt, Karen and Foggy discuss the case with Frank's public defender (who is taking Karen's statement on the hospital shooting), who considers the case open and shut: Frank will plead guilty and be sentenced to death for murders he committed in Delaware, which has the death penalty. In real life, in Delaware, and every other state that has the death penalty, the decision to impose the death penalty must be determined by a separate hearing. And that hearing normally includes a jury, even if the defendant pleads guilty. It is possible for both the State and the defendant to waive a hearing before a jury, but even then there will be a hearing before the judge. The defendant can’t plead straight to the death penalty.
*** When Nelson & Murdock first attempt to approach Frank at the hospital, Reyes attempts to intervene, arguing that speaking to Frank without his attorney present would be a violation of ethical rules. This is simply not true. Ironically, it ''would'' be an ethical violation for Reyes to do the same thing because she represents an opposing party (i.e. the People), per N.Y. Rule 4.2(a). And indeed, Matt correctly tells her as much. At the same time, Reyes fails to note that Matt and Foggy's conversation with Frank might be an ethical breach for a different reason, namely that it’s an inappropriate in-person solicitation under Rule 7.3(a)(1).
*** While negotiating over a plea deal with the District Attorney for Frank Castle, Foggy mentions that one thing Reyes didn't go for is having him in protective custody. However, it's the New York Department of Corrections who determine which prisoners get put in protective custody. Castle is suspected to have killed a bunch of gangsters from three different gangs, so he would almost certainly be placed in protective custody, since these gangs undoubtedly have incarcerated associates who would be itching to kill him in revenge for murdering their comrades.
*** The DA argues that Nelson & Murdock can’t represent Frank because it would be a conflict of interest given their representation of Grotto. This is very wrong for several reasons. For one, Grotto isn’t a current client, since a) he summarily fired the firm in no uncertain terms, and b) he is dead. This still makes Grotto a ''former'' client, which could cause conflicts under Rule 1.9, but those can be avoided in this case. The main concerns are 1.9(a)[[note]]A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing[[/note]] and 1.9(c)[[note]]which limits the use or disclosure of the former client’s confidential information[[/note]]. Representing Frank would not require doing anything materially adverse to Grotto’s interests, especially given that he is dead and had no family or estate (remember that Matt, Karen and Foggy were the only attendees at his funeral). Neither would it require disclosing anything that Grotto told the firm in confidence. So Nelson & Murdock are clear to take Frank’s case.
*** Nelson & Murdock are literally given ''one week'' of prep time before the trial. In real life, following the arraignment (i.e. when Frank pleaded "not guilty") and assuming Frank waived grand jury proceedings, a complex trial like this would be preceded by several weeks or even months of depositions, motions, and hearings, mostly to establish what kind of evidence could be presented to the jury. This is especially in important in cases like this one that rely heavily on expert testimony. Corrupt or not, Reyes wouldn’t want to rush this, either. And even if they did, it would be extremely unusual (and likely appealable) for the judge not to grant the defense an extension of time before the trial started. [[note]] For a real life comparison, Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes was arrested immediately after killing 12 people and injuring 58 more on July 20, 2012 and didn't even start discussing plea deals with the district attorney until March 27, 2013 -- more than eight months later, and his actual trial didn't start until two years later, and just the process of jury selection took three months.[[/note]] From a narrative standpoint, this shortened prep time is somewhat justified, due to the necessity to keep the trial on pace with the Elektra storyline. On the other hand, it does help explain in part why Nelson & Murdock’s defense of Frank Castle was essentially malpractice-level awful.
*** "Fast tracking" in most states means means getting it to trial in fewer than 12 months, not a week. It involves a shit ton of discovery (basically searching and sifting through all sorts of potential evidence, along with answering questions, producing documents, and depositions). That takes MONTHS if not over a year to go through.
*** At the start of the trial, the judge remarks about the difficulty of selecting jurors, because "everyone has an opinion" about the Punisher. Such a situation should have been handled with a change of venue, the process of moving a jury trial away from a location where a fair and impartial jury may not be possible due to widespread publicity about a crime and its defendant(s) to another community in order to obtain jurors who can be more objective in their duties. This change may be to different towns, and across the other sides of states or, in some extremely high-profile federal cases, to other states.
*** The seal behind the judge implies that the trial is in federal court. If it were in federal court, the prosecution would not be done by the District Attorney but by the United States Attorney. The seal also identifies this court as the "United States District Court for the District of New York City." There is no such court, the correct district in Manhattan would be the "Southern District of New York."
*** There's a long, dramatic sequence where Frank is brought into the courtroom in chains and a prison jumpsuit, which would never be done in real life because it could bias the jury. The Supreme Court has ruled that the State isn't allowed to make a defendant wear that in court. A prisoner may choose to appear that way, if for some reason they want to bias the jury or just don't know what they're doing. But preventing a defendant from appearing in the dehumanizing garb of a prisoner is so crucial that ''public defenders'' often hold clothing drives to make sure their clients can dress up.
*** More egregious is that what is shown of the trial on-camera ''isn't even about the crimes that Frank had committed''. Everyone acts as if what had happened to Frank’s family is far more relevant to the current case than it should have been. Having a trial about what kind of man he was when his character wasn’t on trial was just weird. His sanity maybe, but the evidence against him was staggering.
*** When Frank takes the stand, spectators in the gallery are holding signs decrying him as a vicious murderer who should be burned at the stake. Such signs should '''not even be allowed in the courthouse''', never mind an actual courtroom. At another point, a person in the gallery begins shouting that Castle killed his father. The judge orders the person removed, but Nelson & Murdock should have seized the opportunity to request a declaration of a mistrial. Even if they didn’t get it, it would be yet another issue they could appeal if the trial went badly (which it does).
*** Matt and Foggy's defense of Frank centers around Extreme Emotional Disturbance, hoping that if they prevail they can get him the help he needs rather than sending him to prison. Per the New York State penal code, an EED defense merely mitigates a Second or First Degree Murder charge to First Degree Manslaughter, which would still mean Frank would go to prison rather than a mental hospital. Although manslaughter carries a shorter sentence than murder, the fact Frank is being charged with 37 counts of it would presumably keep him away for a long time especially if served consecutively - which may almost be the equivalent of a life sentence (not to mention the fact that Matt and Foggy wanted to keep him out of prison due to the fact that he'd be a walking target for other inmates).
*** A key part of Nelson & Murdock’s defense strategy was convincing Dr. Gregory Tepper, the medical examiner, to come clean about being asked to falsify the records of the deaths of Frank's family. Initially hesitant, the medical examiner decides to change his story on the stand and tell the truth. The judge clears the courtroom (although in reality she almost certainly wouldn’t just because a witness was testifying unexpectedly), and the medical examiner spills the beans and explains that he was forced to confess because Elektra had threatened him the night before. The judge strikes Tepper’s testimony…and Matt and Foggy do nothing but have a fight in the courthouse bathroom, rather than appeal the judge's motion. This is a concept in civil and criminal procedure known as “preserving an issue for appeal.”[[note]]Basically, if the judge makes an error during the trial, if one side doesn’t object during the trial, then it’s much harder or even impossible to appeal the error to a higher court later.[[/note]] Doing nothing, not even giving a verbal objection, about an issue this important, which could have affected the outcome of the trial, is a colossal screwup.
*** There is the issue of whether Tepper altering the medical records is relevant to the case at hand. In federal courts and many states like New York, a witness’ veracity for truthfulness is relevant. Even if Elektra hadn't threatened him, Dr. Tepper's altering medical records would discredit his testimony, which could be introduced on cross-examination. Confronting Dr. Tepper with evidence of falsifying medical records would be potentially devastating and extremely relevant to Frank’s case. However, as the medical records would have been collateral, the Judge would have limited questioning to avoid confusing the jury with facts not material to Frank’s case.
*** Expert witnesses, such as the doctor who testified regarding Frank’s brain injuries, are allowed to give their expert opinion regarding facts (e.g. Frank suffered a brain injury that affects his judgement) but not legal conclusions (e.g “any infractions would be considered crimes of passion”). Drawing a legal conclusion from the facts (e.g. whether Frank was legally insane) is the job of the judge or jury, not the witness. Also, "crimes of passion” really only applies to converting murder to manslaughter, which is still a serious crime, and murder is not the only crime that Frank Castle has committed onscreen (false imprisonment, torture, etc).
*** It is generally a bad idea for criminal defendants to testify in their own case. It opens the door to uncomfortable questions from the prosecution, and there is rarely much the defendant can say that will help rather than hurt their case. This is true in Frank’s case, yet Nelson & Murdock have Karen talk Frank into testifying. This is arguably a breach of ethics, because although Matt and Foggy treat Karen as if she is a partner with equal weight in decision-making, she is a secretary, not a lawyer. Per NY Rule 1.2(a), the decision of whether to testify in one’s case is, ultimately, the client’s decision, not the attorney’s. And not only do the rules specifically contemplate that the client will consult with the lawyer, but it’s implicit that this consultation is a core part of advising (though not deciding for) a client in a criminal case. Thus, what Karen did likely constitutes unauthorized practice of law. And it's a breach of ethics for Matt and Foggy to have someone else doing their dirty work.
*** Not only that, as Frank was so opposed to the PTSD defense, they should have had him removed from the court so he couldn’t talk even if he wanted to. Lawyers are not allowed to let their clients sabotage their own cases; that’s just super bad lawyering. There also may be an issue of perjury going on, since Matt, Foggy and Karen know their client is guilty of crimes, but has pleaded not guilty.
*** Matt’s disastrous examination of Frank is worth pointing out. After a few questions, Matt asks the judge for permission to treat Frank as hostile, then launches into a long, rambling expository speech. In real life, permission to treat a witness as hostile means "treat the witness as though he or she had been called by the opposing party." This doesn’t change much. Mainly it means that Matt can now ask Frank leading questions (i.e. questions that suggest a particular answer is desired). It definitely does not mean Matt can ask “questions” that are long speeches better suited for a closing statement. The only thing that saves Matt is Reyes failing to object to just about every sentence he utters...
*** ...and Reyes' only objections are to Matt's cross-examination questions, citing them as “leading.” When the entire point of cross-examination is to ask leading questions to control the witness, which is allowed. It is equally wrong to object to cross-examination as argumentative, because cross-examination by its very nature is supposed to be argumentative to discredit the witness.
*** Somehow, Nelson & Murdock are able to get Colonel Schoonover as a character witness and not have his deposition. Reyes gets tripped up and embarrassed by the "actually I ''was'' there" trap. This doesn't happen in real life because there's a pretrial deposition of any and all witnesses so that neither defense nor prosecution are just playing a guessing game. It doesn't matter if Schoonover's name was redacted on classified mission reports. Deposition questions from Reyes would be like "what's the nature of your relationship to Castle?" "Why do you endorse his character?" "Were you there to personally witness the mission?" Etc etc. This is simple stuff that non-attorneys should think, "there's no way that this happens in real life." You can't just plop a witness on the stand who hasn't been deposed.
*** Matt and Karen going over strategy for the medical examiner. "Who doctored those certificates? And if he says 'no one' then we already got him admitting they were doctored!" Uh, Matt, Karen, that's gonna be shouted down by Reyes as "Objection. Assumes facts not entered into evidence," as in assuming the "fact" that the certificates were doctored at all. You have to lead to it, i.e. Establish and enter it as evidence by asking all sorts of boring questions leading to "were the reports in any way doctored?" You don't get to say "so, who doctored them?" That's assuming something not yet in evidence. It's like asking a murder suspect "so, when you killed the victim, did you do it with a candlestick or a bat?"
*** Sentencing for Frank after he got himself convicted would take several weeks of more hearings, although one could assume Fisk was pulling strings to get Frank to him before the sentencing could send him to another prison.
*** There are an insane number of conflicts of interest on hand for Nelson & Murdock:
*** 1) Karen was among those caught in the crossfire when Frank was shooting at Grotto in the hospital.
*** 2) As well as Foggy and Karen having been present for the attempted police ambush.
*** 3) Frank asks Foggy to leave the room so he can speak with Karen alone. While Karen works at a law firm, and Matt and Foggy do treat her as if she's a partner with equal footing in decisions, she is a secretary / office manager, not a lawyer. She doesn't have a law degree. Without a lawyer present, anything Frank says to Karen might not protected by attorney/client privilege, and she could be subpoenaed to testify under oath about what he said to her. In fact, her one-on-one conversations with Frank without Matt or Foggy being present may constitute [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_of_law#Unauthorized_practice_of_law Unauthorized Practice of Law]]. So unless Karen is a certified paralegal, it's unlikely she would be permitted to take statements as she did with Frank both at the hospital and in jail on her own, and it's very unlikely that she would be able to sit at the defense bench in a criminal trial.
*** 4) Matt personally witnessed Frank kill Grotto. So he knows the guy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
*** 5) Frank was caught because Matt performed a citizen's arrest of him while in costume as Daredevil.
** Several episodes feature police cars with forward-facing blue and red lights. New York state law prohibits forward-facing blue lights on police vehicles.
** It's very unlikely in real life that a white-collar criminal like Stewart Finney would end up in the same prison as violent murderers like Wilson Fisk. Finney, however, explains when he introduces himself to Fisk that he got caught because he double-crossed the brother of a very influential Justice Department official, so it's possible the official in question pulled strings.
** At the beginning of "[[Recap/Daredevil2015S2E1Bang Bang]]", we see Matt and Foggy arrive at the office and Karen fills them in on the clients in their waiting room. While the scene is funny and is meant to convey the eccentricity of Nelson & Murdock's clientele, Karen is publicly disclosing each individual’s legal problem in earshot of the other clients, [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2016/03/20/nelson-murdock-worse-client-consultations-ever/ potentially a violation of a New York attorney’s duty of confidentiality to a prospective client]].
** As [[http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/06/14/daredevil-season-2-part-1/ this]] and [[http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2016/07/10/daredevil-season-2-part-2-the-trial/ this]] demonstrate, almost ''everything'' about the way the series presents the law is not just wrong, but wildly wrong.
** In season 3, when Fisk has the FBI go after Matt's friends, Karen asks Foggy to be her attorney as she fears that Nadeem will find out she killed Wesley and either send her to jail or have her killed. Foggy asks her to give him money as that will officially make him her lawyer. In real life, you do not have to give an attorney money for attorney-client privilege to be in effect.
** In "[[{{Recap/Daredevil2015S3E13ANewNapkin}} A New Napkin]]", Foggy sketches a doodle for the trio's new firm on a napkin, calling it Nelson Murdock & Page. Thing is, Karen is not a lawyer, and in New York, it's actually a violation of ethics for a non-lawyer to have a partnership stake in a law firm.
** [[https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/2018/12/20/making-at-deal-with-daredevils-kingpin/ As this article points out]], the circumstances behind Wilson Fisk's release from prison in season 3 are semi-plausible but there are some liberties.
*** One example being that the sort of deal Fisk makes (information on the Albanians in exchange for charges against Vanessa being dropped) would more likely be made with the DOJ or the U.S. Attorneys’ office, not with the FBI. Decisions to charge or not to charge lie with prosecutors, not investigators.
*** Another example is the decision to put Fisk up in a penthouse at the Presidential Hotel, following two attempts on his life (one of which was a FalseFlagOperation). The Federal Bureau of Prisons has an established protocol for protecting prison informants and has special housing units available to keep them safe. Simply put, there should be no need and no reason to move Fisk to a hotel penthouse. A lot of this can be explained away as being because of Fisk's machinations (since [[FalseFlagOperation Fisk had paid Jasper Evans to shank him]], and the agent in charge of Fisk's protection detail [[DirtyCop is actively working for him]]), but not all of it.
*** Once Fisk gets his conviction overturned, the main characters suddenly act like they must get him on new charges. Unless the judges ruled that there was insufficient evidence against him for any reasonable jury to convict him though (quite unlikely), this would result in Fisk being granted a retrial on the same RICO charges.[[note]]We know for a certainty that Fisk was convicted of the murders of Detective Blake and the other cops killed on the night of the bombings, since the protesters at the Presidential Hotel's courtyard are holding signs denouncing Fisk as a cop killer. Beyond that, we can only speculate[[/note]] Not to mention, it's totally possible (and even pointed out by Foggy) that Fisk could be tried on state charges in New York without regard to the outcome of his federal case. It's explained that the reason it takes so long for anyone to go this route is because District Attorney Blake Tower is reluctant to prosecute Fisk because he doesn't want to jeopardize his reelection campaign / get intimidated by Fisk, though curiously no one considers taking up with the New York State's Attorney.
*** Marci convinces Foggy that he should run against Blake Tower as a write-in District Attorney candidate to bring Tower's inactivity in prosecuting Fisk to public light. Yet, while campaigning, Foggy still has enough time to investigate Fisk and be lawyer for Karen and for Matt at times. In real life, campaigning is a 24/7 job. Foggy wouldn’t have had time for anything else. In addition, while Foggy's intention was "make myself so public that I'm untouchable to Fisk," in real life, it would have exposed him way too much. It would have been very easy for Fisk to get to him if his profile were to reach that level. On top of that, there are so many other details of the story arc that are just incompatible with campaigning. For instance, Marci and Foggy probably would have had to get married ''immediately'' as soon as Foggy threw his hat in the ring. Also, if Foggy won, Marci would have no choice but to quit her job at Jeri Hogarth & Associates to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.
* ''Series/JessicaJones2015'':
** 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, [[spoiler: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. 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. [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2018/03/17/did-the-hogarth-chao-benowitz-llp-employment-contract-violate-the-law/ 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. [[LampshadeHanging It's no wonder 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); and it's up for debate whether her entertaining with HookersAndBlow 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), [[OmnidisciplinaryLawyer 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.
* ''Series/LukeCage2016'':
** Every time a suspect asks for a lawyer, the interrogator continues asking questions, hoping to pressure the suspect into talking. Even Inspector Ridley who is characterized by her belief in following the system, does so. In reality, the police ''must'' end an interrogation the moment a suspect asks for legal counsel, and can only resume once a lawyer has arrived. [[LoopholeAbuse While there ARE instances where cops try to skirt around this]], they usually try to do so by changing the subject or asserting that their past or present questions weren't part of any "official" interrogation, not by simply ''ignoring'' the request as seen in this show. If they do, and it's recorded, anything they get after this is unusable in court.
** [[BailEqualsFreedom Shades making bail]] is treated as if he skated on all criminal charges he was facing. Posting bail is not the same thing as "cleared of all charges." Bail is a fee you pay to be released from jail, with the guarantee that you will make your appearance in court. If you don't appear, you'll be tracked down and arrested, then put in jail until your trial, plus faced with a bail-jumping charge too. Furthermore, people on bail tend to be subject to various other restrictions on what activities they can engage in[[note]]like not being allowed to make contact with their criminal associates, or not allowed to travel outside a certain area, etc.[[/note]], meaning Misty would've had grounds to rearrest Shades on a bail violation when she, Luke and Claire caught him and Mariah at Pops' barbershop. Furthermore, given the charges Shades had been facing, it's very unlikely an arraignment judge would've even considered bail for him in the first place.
*** When Inspector Ridley is interrogating Shades, she says that as Shades was a participant in Diamondback's hostage situation, he is facing multiple kidnapping with weapon charges. This seems to ignore the fact that one of the hostages (Damon Boone) was killed, so in real life, Shades wouldn't just be charged with kidnapping and illegal possession of a firearm, he'd also be charged with FelonyMurder. And given that the victim was a prominent city councilman, Shades would certainly be denied bail.
** Luke's backstory plays fast and loose with human research ethics (which have been codified into law since WWII). FDA regulations explicitly forbid the use of prisoners in research providing no direct benefit, except in very specific cases (most of which require that the research have no or minimal risk). They also forbid using reduced sentencing as an incentive toward consent--that's textbook coercion. That said, Seagate doesn't seem to be overly concerned with legality, so they may be fully aware that they are breaking the law. It could be argued that this illegality was also among the many things Foggy used to get Luke released from prison at the start of ''The Defenders''.
* ''Series/IronFist2017'':
** A minor case, but when the DEA SWAT team raids Colleen's dojo on the "tip" from Harold's frameup, they kick in the door without first shouting "Police! Open the door!" Part of the reason the police do that is... pretty much to avoid this ''exact'' situation; there ''is'' a significant percentage of civilians with combat training, many of which live in high-crime neighborhoods ''just like Colleen's'' where having their homes invaded by violent criminals is a ''very real possibility.'' Sure, Colleen and Danny only gave them two seconds, but that's more than enough time to then shout the two words law enforcement are legally ''required'' to the ''instant'' a raid begins and ''before'' shots are fired so as to avoid entrapment -- so that suspects know that the invaders are ''not'' criminals and they'll be in trouble if they fight back. [[spoiler:This probably helps with Danny's WrongfulAccusationInsurance at the end of the episode -- though, too, the "[[ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney generous contribution to the DEA Widows and Children's Fund]]" was probably a lot more effective]]. The only legal exception is if they have reason to believe the suspects will destroy evidence upon hearing the police are at the door, and they need a special "no-knock" warrant to not announce their presence.
** The board of directors cannot simply "oust" Danny, Ward, and Joy from the company, as they're the majority shareholders. For them to even ''be'' directors requires Danny's approval.
* ''{{Series/Elementary}}'': A pretty severe one, given the premise of the show. Sherlock and Joan are often shown questioning witnesses/suspects without NYPD presence or permission, entering and searching private property on their own without a search warrant, plus sometimes Sherlock collects evidence from crime scenes for his own personal use. It's difficult to understate what a huge no-no this is in criminal investigations. In the real world the defense attorneys for the criminals Sherlock captures would have a field day with this, these criminals would have all had mistrials, and Sherlock himself would be under arrest, not to mention no longer consulting with police.
** Eventually this comes up and is very, very thinly masked with BlatantLies by Sherlock (e.g. claiming that locked doors were "just open").
** In "Art Imitates Art" an artist creates images using photos taken off social media without permission. No one mentions the fact that the owners (many of whom are very angry about this) could have him charged with copyright violation and the photos taken down.
** A Russian says he's uncowed by police threats of sending him home to where he's wanted if he doesn't cooperate, as the US doesn't have any extradition treaty with Russia. However, the police fail to point out that extradition or not, they could still turn him over to Russia. The extradition treaty simply formalizes this, obligating one country to turn over wanted fugitives if the other goes through proper procedures.
** In "Be My Guest" Sherlock goes after a man holding a woman captive without telling the police, saying they wouldn't have enough evidence to get a warrant. Which is not true, since he read the man's lips showing he was conspiring to have her murdered, and saw a photo of her on his phone with a chain around her neck. Based on his testimony, that would be more than enough for a warrant, which Sherlock being not only a highly knowledgeable genius but having worked with the police for years, should know by now.
* ''Series/CommanderInChief'': In one episode, Mackenzie debates over whether to spare a mentally disabled Texan woman on death row for murdering a cab driver, and she eventually does so. However, the US President cannot grant pardons or reprieves to state prisoners, only federal ones. Some other episodes see her create a scholarship program through executive order (Congress would have to enact it) and federalizing law enforcement in a state county (which is completely illegal).
* ''{{Series/Limitless}}'': {{Discussed}} by Brian's father, who points out the FBI is essentially keeping him hostage and using him as a drug guinea pig. Brian doesn't want to actually push it though. Additionally, clearing the innocent man in "Stop Me Before I Hug Again" would be much harder with the evidence shown than they make out.
* ''Series/YouMeAndTheApocalypse'': Hacking into the NSA is not treason. On the other hand, it could get you a much longer prison sentence than five to ten years, especially if you're also being made an example of.
* ''Series/HellOnWheels'': Governor Campbell claims he can't pardon Ruth if she won't accept it. While it's certainly unusual that a prisoner wouldn't want a pardon, doing so is the governor's discretion, and doesn't require anyone else's consent.
* ''{{Series/Gotham}}'': It's a PoliceProcedural set in the universe that spawns Batman. Some instances can be disregarded as evidence of how crooked Gotham is, others less so. Especially bad is its treatment of insanity. People aren't just declared insane, sent to a mental institution and get off completely. Rather, they have to make an {{insanity defense}} at trial, which is very difficult. In the US, most states which still have the insanity defense (some have abolished it) use the M'Naghten rule, which says a person is insane if they're unable to tell right from wrong, or can't comprehend the consequences of their actions (i.e. harming someone during a delusion which left them unaware of what was going on). So it's unlikely for most villains to be found insane and committed. There's also no such thing as a real "certificate of sanity".
** Gordon is held due to "suspicion" that he helped a prisoner break out. In reality, there's no such thing--arrests need probable cause, which isn't presented here, otherwise they could be sued and possibly even hit with a civil rights violation. Captain Barnes, who ordered this, is a {{by the book cop}} who you'd think would know better than to try it.
** There's no way the state and federal authorities simply would ignore Gotham city officials allowing Penguin to "license" criminals. It would be a RICO indictment on all of them.
** You still have to read people their rights even if they know them, otherwise anything they say is not admissible.
* ''Series/BetterCallSaul'':
** The Philadelphia detectives who talk to Mike in "Five-O" describe Matt as working in a "precinct". For the purposes of policing, Philadelphia is broken up into "districts", not "precincts". Outside of the NYPD, the word "precinct" is rarely, if ever, used by either police officers or civilians.
** It's what Jimmy himself practices, often committing ethically questionable (bribing a bus driver to stop so he can solicit passengers, for instance) or outright illegal acts (forging documents to {{gaslight}} Chuck; Squat Cobbler) to advance his lawyer goals. Unsurprisingly, he gets called out a lot.
** There are a number of problems with Chuck going in to work at HHM in season 2. Namely, that HHM is knowingly putting a mentally ill lawyer on cases (although it can be argued that as far as HHM knows his illness is physical and in their interest to believe it). But Chuck's illness actually makes him less of an asset and more of a liability: if a client catches wind of Chuck's illness, then every client that HHM has allowed Chuck to work for subsequent to the onset of his mental illness could have grounds to sue HHM for malpractice, breach of contract, and anything else they can think of. Moreover, every lawyer with knowledge of Chuck's impairment (and there was a conference room of them who had to turn over their cell phones and cut the power to the building whenever he came by) would be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Lawyers have an ethical and moral duty to inform their state's Bar Association about an attorney who is obviously impaired. Chuck may be "brilliant" per se but it is highly unlikely that his illness, and all the limitations and delusions that come with it, does not compromise his ability to practice and render competent legal counsel.
*** This is lampshaded by Howard early in season 3, as he points out that while Jimmy is at fault for forging the Mesa Verde papers, it shouldn't have happened in the first place since HHM ''locks those documents in safer places'' to avoid these kind of problems.
*** Ultimately, Season 3 takes this case of Hollywood Law and ends up [[RealityEnsues applying reality to it]], when [[spoiler:Jimmy tips off the insurance company about Chuck's mental illness. This causes them to raise malpractice premiums on ''all'' of HHM's practicing attorneys[[note]]There's even an argument to be made that the insurance company would have inevitably found out about the illness on their own, just much later, and Jimmy just made the inevitable happen sooner[[/note]]. Howard's patience with Chuck was already growing thin, and the insurance premiums going up because of Chuck's illness proves to be the straw that breaks the camel's back between them.]]
** Jimmy's hearing before the Bar in "Chicanery". As an adversarial hearing, both sides have rights to a fair hearing, so in real life, there is no way they could provide all the accommodations for Chuck with nothing said at all about Kim objecting to having the hearings in the dark and everyone being forced to turn over watches and phones. No sane judge would even entertain Chuck's requests absent a motion by Chuck's side to grant them, and an independent physical and mental exam required before granting them. It doesn't matter if everyone on that panel owed their careers to Chuck, they're on the panel because they've proven themselves to be objective jurists with a firm grasp of the law, so they're not going to subject a defendant to all of these accommodations unless Chuck could prove (backed by the testimony of an independent doctor) it was medically necessary. Justified in that Kim and Jimmy's plan was to discredit Chuck in court so they accepted the accommodations and without any parties objecting there was no reason to consider the hearing unfair.
*** Also from the Bar hearing, there is a conflict of interest for Kim to be Jimmy's attorney of record since they're sleeping together and sharing office space.
* ''Series/OrangeIsTheNewBlack'': Not so much the law itself, but the the logistics of how it is practiced. In the Season Two opener, [[spoiler: Piper is brought in to testify about Alex's supplier and gives some very unhelpful testimony.]] In the real world this might possibly happen, but a prosecutor would never in a million years put a witness in its case on the stand without thoroughly deposing them beforehand.
* In ''Series/GilmoreGirls'', Luke tries suing for partial custody of his daughter, April. His lawyer informs him that he can't win, because the mother had custody up until then and the court won't want to upset the existing arrangement, for the good of the child. Luke points out that he didn't ''know'' April existed until she was 12, and the lawyer says that doesn't matter. In fact, it's down in Connecticut law that preference is to be given to existing custody arrangements reached by ''previous agreement or court decision'', neither of which applies. So the situation is actually covered by the law, and it does matter that the mother didn't tell Luke about his daughter. But then, he won, so maybe his lawyer didn't know what he was talking about.
* ''{{Series/Bull}}'':
** There is actually no real evidence for probable cause to secure an arrest or search warrant at the end of "The Necklace".
** [[AvertedTrope Averted]] in the third episode, as evidence is presented at trial [[spoiler: that the murdered's teammates were using steroids]].
** Episode four is about a patent infringement suit in Texas. It takes place in a fictional town named Callisto. However, patent law in the US is a federal issue. Therefore it would be tried by one of the four federal district courts in Texas. All of these are in major cities. Callisto's reputation as a favorable jurisdiction for patent plaintiffs probably comes from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which also has this (where one in four patent suits is filed). It's located in the city of Tyler.
* ''Series/DesignatedSurvivor'':
** Kirkman has Governor Royce arrested for treason when he blocks his adviser from getting off a plane in Michigan, plus possibly having the National Guard refuse Kirkman's orders. These are crimes, but hardly treason. Under American law, this is defined solely as levying war against the USA or giving aid to its enemies. Kirkman must know treason is a rare charge to make that will not stand up in court. He could already have him arrested for violating the civil rights of Muslims by having them detained without charge (though the Governor, SmugSnake that he was, pretty much made it clear that as long as Kirkman was acting President he would disobey any order to a point short of actual secession, so there is that).
** In RealLife, only the Vice-President can actually become President through succession; anyone stepping up from further down the line would be the Acting President until the end of the term they succeeded to. That said, InUniverse there is nobody else constitutionally eligible to occupy the office for the remainder of the term so long as Kirkman remains eligible, so the distinction in this case is semantic only.
** When the Vice-President and Cabinet threaten to invoke the TwentyFifthAmendment in episode "Kirkman Agonistes," the outcome is presented as an immediate and permanent removal from office. However, the amendment expressly gives the President the right to challenge the removal and retain the office. If the VP and Cabinet invoke the Amendment again in response, then the VP is made Acting President in the interim and the case is adjudicated in Congress right away to resolve the dispute. Even if the President is found by Congress to be incapacitated, at no point does the President cease to be the President; only the "''powers and duties''" of the office would devolve onto the VP as Acting President, not the office itself. Also, the President can theoretically issue an unlimited number challenges to regain the powers and duties of the office for the remainder of the term, as the Amendment does not specifically limit how many times the President can do so.
** One episode involves around Kirkman's attempts to work Congress to pass a gun control bill. However the bill is stated to actually be proposed by a staunch opponent of gun control, who brought up the bill to appear as if he was willing to work with the President, however the bill is stated to be intentionally poorly worded and full of loopholes. This is dealt with by having the Speaker of the House promise to fix the bill via amendments in the House if the bill passes the Senate, which is the main hurdle to passage. The problem is that both the House and Senate must pass the same bill to get it to the President's desk, and if the law is significantly edited, it would have to be sent back to the Senate for repassage[[note]]A frequent method to deal with this, never mentioned in the show, is to establish a "conference committee" that works to compromise between the House and Senate bills and create a new bill based on that compromise that would have to be passed again by both houses. This option is never even mentioned.[[/note]] before the President can sign it. This is never touched on, and it's implied after the bill narrowly passes the Senate that all hurdles have been breached and the House-edited bill is soon signed by Kirkman.
* ''Series/HouseOfCardsUS'':
** As President, Frank Underwood would never be able to appoint Claire as a US Ambassador in season 3 or later put her on the ticket for VP in season 4 because in response to the controversy that resulted when UsefulNotes/JohnFKennedy appointed his brother Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General, Congress passed the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, also known as the "Bobby Kennedy Act". This anti-nepotism act made it illegal under 5 U.S. Code § 3110 for a sitting president to "employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement" a relative to any political or bureaucratic office.
*** It could be debated whether or not the selection of a relative as a running-mate violates or undermines anti-nepotism law, particularly since in the show it was the Democratic National Convention that (technically) made the selection, not the president himself (as Frank would have been acting in his capacity as a candidate, and not president anyway).
** If Heather Dunbar had been a long-shot candidate for the presidency, Claire Underwood being on the presidential ticket as her husband's choice for VP is simply unbelievable, as in, ''political suicide''. On the one hand, you have the huge legal problems that comes from the obvious conflict of interest, not to mention that, as with Claire's ambassadorship above, Frank would be forbidden from making a spouse or family member his running mate. Furthermore, every pundit should be asking, what does Claire ''offer'' for the ticket? She has no political experience that comes from an ''elected'' office. She has no military or business service. Her brief stint as UN ambassador was a disaster (to put it nicely) and a black eye for Frank's presidency. She might help with the women's vote, but Catherine Durant could have done that and still brought her experience from her time as a senator and Secretary of State. Claire has a good public image, but only as a First Lady. The focus groups even point out that no one trusts or believes in her abilities beyond that role.
** One subplot in season 3 involves Russia's internationally criticized ban on materials promoting "non-traditional sexual relations" among minors, also known as Russia's "gay propaganda" law. In Chapter 32, the Underwoods go to Moscow to try to negotiate the release of Michael Corrigan, an American LGBT activist who is among several detained for violating the "gay propaganda" ban by participating in a rally in support of gay rights. Corrigan tells Claire that a fellow Russian gay rights activist died in custody after a 28-day hunger strike. In real life, though, the penalty isn't as severe as the show makes it seem to be: violations of the "gay propaganda" law in Russia are punishable by a fine, while foreigners like Corrigan may also face up to a 15-day "administrative arrest," followed by deportation. So, in real life, there probably would be no need of any kind for the Underwoods to travel to Russia to negotiate Corrigan's release. This is probably explained by the fact that although Viktor Petrov is obviously ''based'' on Vladimir Putin, he is not meant to ''be'' Vladimir Putin. Therefore it is perfectly plausible that this alternate Russian president would pass a harsher law.
** The flashback in "Chapter 46" going back to the New Year's party in season 1 establishes that Will Conway was elected Governor in 2012, the same year Garrett Walker was elected President. New York elects Governors on the midterm cycles (2010, 2014, 2018, etc), not the Presidential election cycles. In reality, Conway would have been halfway through his first term when that scene happened, and the same would be true if he wins the 2016 race, in which case, he'd be resigning his post and his lieutenant governor would fill the position until the next election.[[note]]Such a scenario played out in 1992 when Bill Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas, was elected to his first term as President; his lieutenant governor Jim Guy Tucker became governor in December 1992 when Clinton officially resigned from the governorship.[[/note]]
** Peter Russo's storyline in Season 1 revolves around running in a special election for governor of Pennsylvania, triggered by the election of Jim Matthews as Vice President. In real life, Pennsylvania and most other states elect the governor and lieutenant governor on the same gubernational ticket, with the lieutenant governor becoming governor in case of a vacancy (as happened in 2001, when Pennsylvania's then-Governor Tom Ridge was appointed Homeland Security Advisor [[note]]If you didn't live in Pennsylvania at the time, you might remember Ridge better as the guy who invented the color-coded-terrorism-alerts system.[[/note]]). There would not be an election until the next regularly scheduled one. It's possible that what we're seeing is a recall election (which requires proponents to file a petition, then gather a certain number of signatures from registered voters within a certain time period), but there's no mention of that.
* ''Series/EliStone'':
** A particularly bad example in the episode "Sonoma" which not only has half the lawyers thrown in jail because the HangingJudge used to date one of them, it forces two sets of lawyers from opposing firms to ALL be working for the same woman. Conflict of interest much? Also has SurpriseWitness and SmokingPaintingWithMatchingNecklace.
** While the "Chinese wall" is a real legal concept, the use of it in the US is generally not allowed. Not to mention, having two lawyers from the same firm represent opposing parties in a dispute is the very definition of the term "conflict of interest."
* ''Series/Conviction2016'': Part of Tess's backstory, mistakenly saying that an innocent man murdered her aunt, makes no legal sense. She had identified him in a line up and testified against him, yet somehow he doesn't know her name or face, so she's able to come up and buy food from him each day for months before finally revealing it? Defendants have the right to confront (i.e. face) witnesses against them, so he would have been sitting in court when she testified. Only in a few cases can a witness be allowed to not face the defendant--mostly sex offenses, which doesn't apply here, and he would still know her name. Tess implies she may have been a minor at the time of the crime and subsequent trial, which may affect whether her identity was protected.
* ''Series/FakingIt'': Season 2's code of conduct. According to law minors aren't bound by any contract they may sign so Principle Turner can't actually hold them to anything written therein. Then again, most minors don't actually know that, so he may just have been playing on their lack of knowledge.
* ''{{Series/Frequency}}'': Satch's loyalty to Stan is revealed to be because he helped Satch cover up his killing a perp early in his career, claiming it was in self-defense. Trouble is, the flashback of the event clearly shows that it really ''was'' due to self-defense by any reasonable measure, making every single viewer question what the point of the conspiracy was. Some fans speculated that, given the massive increase in attention to police brutality in the previous couple years, the crew had decided the audience would instantly lose all sympathy for Satch if he really had wrongfully killed someone, but it was too late to alter the story in a way that made any sense.
* ''Series/TheGoodPlace'': The police officer who arrests Pillboy downplays his role in the robbery, saying that he might get probation as Jason was the "brains" of the operation. In Florida, Pillboy is more likely to get up to 15 years for committing a robbery (that resulted in the death of his co-conspirator), or life (if he had a weapon).
* ''Series/ParksAndRecreation'' had a storyline in early season seven about the company that provides the city's internet openly performing mass data mining on the populace. We're told that this is technically legal because of a bit of fine print buried in a appendix of the agreement signed by the city manager. Not only are such contractual tricks completely invalid, but the personal data privacy of the citizens aren't the city's to sign away.
* ''{{Series/Timeless}}'': Lucy convinces James Capone to come with them to Chicago and arrest Al Capone. The problem with the plan is that they have nothing to back up that arrest. Al just had the tax evasion charges against him dismissed and they do not have any evidence tying him to other crimes. If James arrests Al, Al will be out of jail within an hour or two. Al Capone was not an outlaw that had to tracked down and apprehended. The police could have arrested him at any time but did not have the evidence to make the arrest stick.
* ''Series/ChicagoJustice'': The pilot, "Fake", has the prosecution's victory hinge on a particularly JustForFun/{{egregious}} example. Prosecutor Stone claims the defendant's outburst in court is "testimony" so he can call him as a witness for "cross-examination". Naturally the defense lawyer objects, but the judge rejects his entirely valid argument and allows it, though also noting she'd "probably be overturned on appeal". Make that ''definitely''. No way would this fly--the defendant wasn't sworn and on the stand, so it isn't testimony, thus they can't "cross-examine" him about this. The entire case is won due to all the information that he reveals during questioning, so the conviction would be vacated and then they would have to try him again (doubtless at great cost). It's also unnecessary, since they discover evidence which incriminated him that ''could'' be used. Olinsky would also not have been allowed to investigate the case since his daughter was a victim. The judge also lets the defense attorney get into why the defendant's confession was suppressed, which wouldn't happen.
* ''Series/TimeAfterTime'': New York City actually has numerous restrictions on buying or possessing guns, contrary to what Dr. Stevenson says.
* ''{{Series/Homeland}}'': When Saul asks Carrie if she's going to appeal the judge's order removing her daughter to foster care, she says it can't be appealed, and they both act surprised. This isn't true--all orders of the New York City family courts [[http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/family/faqs_appeals.shtml can be appealed]], provided proper notice is given, procedures obeyed, etc.
* ''Series/ASeriesOfUnfortunateEvents2017'':
** ''The Marvelous Marriage'', a [[StylisticSuck play]] by [[SignificantAnagram Al Funcoot]], which is all Count Olaf's ridiculous plan to marry Violet to gain the Baudelaire fortune, has massive gaping holes in it. Starting with the fact that she was being illegally coerced into signing, and thus the contract should have been void. Not to mention that marrying one's legal guardian even after one has come of age tends to be illegal in most jurisdictions, specifically to avoid circumstances such as these. And finally, a judge must have the deliberate intent of performing a marriage, not just going through the motions on stage, no matter how accurate, for the ceremony to be valid. No one noticed any of this, and instead they went with the equally ridiculous solution of [[spoiler:it not being valid due to Violet signing with her non-dominant hand]].
** After Count Olaf is arrested, the Baudelaires hope to live with a good family they had found, but the executor of their parents' will won't let them, on the grounds that the will stated that they had to live with family until Violet was an adult. Everyone takes it as a given that this is absolutely factual, despite...
*** The executor was a banker, and as such would not know much about probate law. The man offering to take the Baudelaires in was a ''judge''. Even if he wasn't a probate judge, he'd undoubtedly still know enough about the subject to dispute such an arbitrary ruling from a totally unqualified individual.
*** It's rather unlikely that a probate court would rule to disinherit a family because the deceased's first choice of guardian was proven to be criminally unacceptable.
*** Rather than actually name a guardian for their children, the Baudelaires' will simply stated that they live with a relative. Given such an vague and open-ended instruction, a probate court could just throw that clause out, especially since Count Olaf's relationship to the family was so distant (the siblings had never even heard of him until the day before he became their guardian) that one could make a good argument that giving the guardianship to him in the first place was a violation of the clause.
*** Given that his choice of guardian for the three children ended up getting arrested for child abuse, Mr Poe could very easily be stripped of the position of executor of the Baudelaire estate for such a blatant failure to choose an appropriate guardian (and deliberately ignoring the children when they tried to tell him about earlier counts of abuse). Especially since the sole reason he picked Count Olaf to be the children's guardian was the fact that his house was on the way to the train station, so Mr Poe could drop them off without deviating from his daily routine.
* ''Series/TrueBlood'':
** The entire arc of Sookie Stackhouse having killed Debbie Pelt. [[http://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78338 Louisiana is a strong "castle doctrine" state]] (see 4a), making it very unlikely Sookie would be in any legal trouble for killing an armed intruder inside of her own home. Which wouldn't help her with the werewolf pack any, but does make all her worries about being arrested totally unnecessary.
** The state of Louisiana apparently has the power to levy war in this particular vision of the United States.
** The Bill of Rights are incorporated as federal laws, and the governor of any state cannot unilaterally suspend them, especially the rights of any individual group of citizens. However, it's clear that, even though his legal standing is highly dubious, Governor Burrell is getting away with it due to massive public approval, though why the feds don't stop him isn't shown (though at this point they may not care).
* ''{{Series/Preacher|2016}}'': After he arrests Cassidy, Root discovers he's a vampire on running his prints, which turn up arrest records going back to the 1920s. However, records have not been digitized nearly so far back, and even then not all of them are in a central database.
* ''Series/MinorityReport2015'': Unlike most psychic detective shows, precogs like Dash do ''not'' exist in a legal gray area. Their powers are well-known, and exploiting them is extremely illegal. Vega and Dash must struggle to keep his involvement hidden, until she gets the idea to bring him in on Hawk-Eye.
** The episode "The American Dream" has Akeela stating that the price of granting illegal immigrants amnesty was the repeal of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires ignoring the amendment process's requirement of three-quarters of state legislatures approving it after two-thirds of Congress does.
* A subtle one in ''{{Series/Sense8}}'''s second season finale. [[spoiler: The whole cluster is shown flying to London within a day's notice to rescue Wolfgang, but no explanation is given of how Third World characters like Lito and Kala were able to obtain a UK visa overnight, or why Capheus would even have a ''passport''.]]
* ''Series/AmericanGods'': The detective in "Lemon Scented You" keeps asking Shadow questions even after he repeatedly asks for a lawyer, which means anything which he tells her can't be used as evidence. However, she does make it clear that she's more interested in finding out who tipped her off than prosecuting two small-time swindlers.
* ''Series/CriminalMinds'': "Collision Course." [[spoiler:The judge denies bail/bond for Reid on the basis of "actions speak louder than words" [[note]]Spending his off-duty time sneaking across the Mexican border to get unlicensed medicine for his mother.[[/note]]... despite so many more factors in his favor (his decade-long track record, his mental illness history, his schizophrenic mother at home, his willingness to surrender his passport and submit to monitoring, and the support of several high-profile FBI figures). In RealLife, said judge might as well have committed career suicide.]]
* ''Series/StarTrekDiscovery'': In "Context Is for Kings", Burnham suspects Captain Lorca is developing biological weapons aboard ''Discovery'' and cites the Geneva Conventions' ban on them to him. There's a couple of problems with this:
** In real life, the Geneva Conventions actually ''don't'' outlaw bioweapons; those are covered by a different set of treaties (the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits their use but not their creation, while the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention outlaws them altogether). However, in addition to citing the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention as above, Burnham also cites a fictional 22nd-century version of the Conventions under which these are covered.
** In "The Battle at the Binary Stars", Burnham and Captain Georgiou attach a torpedo warhead to a corpse so T'Kuvma's ship will collect the body and allow the warhead to go off within their ship. This directly violates [[https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule80 Article 6 of 1980 Protocol II]] of the Geneva Conventions, which pertains to attaching booby-traps to wounded or dead persons. This makes her complaint to Lorca rather hypocritical.
* ''Series/BreakingBad'': Saul asks Walt and Jesse each put a dollar in his pocket to officially hire him as their attorney and be protected by attorney-client privilege. Exchanging money isn't necessary before getting attorney-client privilege. Otherwise, attorneys working ''pro-bono'' and public defenders would certainly confuse the issue. People just need to have reasonable cause to believe that they are the attorney's client.
* ''{{Series/MASH}}'':
** Any time Frank brings charges against Hawkeye and crew, when Hawkeye is found "not guilty" of whatever it is Frank was setting him up for, Frank is never brought up on any charges for falsifying statements even when his actions could have led to Hawkeye's death.
** When Flagg visits the camp in "Officer of the Day," he insists that Hawkeye prepare his patient so Flagg can take him to Seoul, where he intends to execute him for being a spy. Although spies may have been executed, it wouldn't have been for Flagg to do on his own.
** Many of the stunts and hijinks pulled were ''incredibly'' illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and would have brought serious consequences. Remarkably, accounts from real M*A*S*H staff suggest they and their colleagues often got away with ''worse''.
* ''Series/TheGoodPlace'': In the third season, a police officer announces that Jason has "admitted to the robbery." However, a "robbery" means stealing something directly from a victim by force, threats or intimidation, such as holding up a bank or mugging someone. Given Jason's personality and the fact that he's free within a year, the show obviously meant "larceny," which is stealing things without this means.
* ''Series/ForThePeople'':
** The attorneys that had just started working at the US Attorney's Office and Public Defender's Office would not be sent to deal with big cases on their own straight off. Instead, they would work under supervision of a more experienced attorney, as simply one part of a team. Of course, [[RuleOfDrama this would not be so dramatic]]. A lot of the questions witnesses get asked are things which they couldn't know, and would thus be objected to. Inappropriate arguments are allowed in closing too. Cases also take far more time until they get to trial.
** Only $9,000 of fraud from insider trading is also not something they would bring to trial. It certainly annoys Chief Judge Nicholas Byrne, who takes off his glasses and asks, "''This'' is what Roger Dunn is prioritizing in the US Attorney's office nowadays?" The insider trading case actually gets a lot of the other matters of law correct, such as having the lawyers argue from behind counsel table instead of pacing inside of the well (the area between counsel tables and the judge's bench).
** The question about whether any crime that was committed in Yellowstone National Park could be tried has been raised. It isn't, however, because of the small area which is in Idaho lacks a local population. Rather, it's because it falls in three states, so which Federal District Court should have jurisdiction is a problem then under the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The part in Idaho actually falls in the Wyoming District Court's jurisdiction, rather than Idaho's as well.
* ''Series/CrossingLines'': The International Criminal Court does not have any authority to set up a police team akin to the one that's shown in the series, nor does their jurisdiction cover cross-border offenses in the EU.
* ''Series/FindingCarter'': Elizabeth gets Crash a deal to avoid prison by talking with the DA and his lawyer. She tells him about this after he arrives in the courthouse. However, he would have to agree on this beforehand. Not that he wouldn't, of course, but it isn't the first time he'd be hearing about it in reality.
* ''Series/ProvenInnocent'': In "A [=CinderHella=] Story" after Violet records [[spoiler: Adela and Kaufman]] talking of how they got the former off, she says they can't use it because of attorney-client privilege. However, that only applies to legal communications between attorneys and clients, but the pair agree with her even so. She is not a lawyer in any case, so the evidence could be delivered to the police regardless. However, eavesdropping like she did is illegal under Illinois law, so there could be some repercussions for it. Bellows likely would be happy to get it though and decline to prosecute (Violet could be sued for this however).
* ''Series/TheTwilightZone2002'': One standard use of this trope with "[[FailedExecutionNoSentence if people sentenced to death cannot be executed for reasons beyond our control]], ''even after trying several times'', they are free" appears in "The Executions Of Grady Finch", among some other examples.

Top