History Main / HollywoodLaw

* In ''DoubleJeopardy'', Ashley Judd is framed by her husband for his own murder and serves prison time. When she gets out, she hunts him down and brags that she could kill him and get away with it because she's already been convicted of that crime and double jeopardy means she can't be prosecuted for it again. Problem is, she was convicted of ''that'' crime (that is, of "murdering" him at that specific time, in that specific place). Hunting him down to another city and killing him ''there'', ''then'', would be another crime entirely, and thus she could be justly convicted of it. (For example, if I was convicted of robbing you on Tuesday, I couldn't steal from you again on Thursday and expect double jeopardy to apply, because it's a second trial for the same offence, it's being tried for committing the same offence twice.) Not to mention the host of other crimes she committed, including escape from custody, assault on law enforcement, property damage, unlicensed possession of a firearm, transporting an unlicensed weapon across state lines, assault with intent to kill, violation of her probation, and probably more.

* In ''DoubleJeopardy'', Ashley Judd is framed by her husband for his own murder and serves prison time. When she gets out, she hunts him down and brags that she could kill him and get away with it because she's already been convicted of that crime and double jeopardy means she can't be prosecuted for it again. Problem is, she was convicted of ''that'' crime (that is, of "murdering" him at that specific time, in that specific place). Hunting him down to another city and killing him ''there'', ''then'', would be another crime entirely, and thus she could be justly convicted of it. Not to mention the host of other crimes she committed, including escape from custody, assault on law enforcement, property damage, unlicensed possession of a firearm, transporting an unlicensed weapon across state lines, assault with intent to kill, violation of her probation, and probably more.

** Crossing state lines makes her arguement harder, but within the same state, she probably could not be tried for a murder she was already convicted of (even the attempt to do so would leave the state itself open to a HUGE lawsuit regarding her prior conviction and incarceration and would likely result in the matter being swept under the rug).

* Freedom Of Speech. This is often misinterpreted to mean you can say whatever you want wherever, when in reality, the only thing it protects you from reprimand from the authorities unless you're making direct threats. Private entities are still free to fire you, remove you from their property, and (in some cases) sue for slander if you run your mouth too much.

** This was called attention to at one point in Harvey Birdman, when Der Spusmacher has to tell Birdman that he can't use the insanity defense in the Devlin case because it isn't a criminal trial

** Yet it doesn't happen in real life- because the fraudster will usually be/have been prosecuted for fraud and the money has either gone (on high living and/or the court case) or 'disappeared'.

*** 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 privileged was used to toss it. Privilege doesn't work like that, especially if its a conspiracy a lawyer is involved with, and even more so that a third person whose not a spouse makes it so it never existed it.

* In ''Northern Exposure'', 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 five-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). This is a classic case of DidNotDoTheResearch, in that such a contract is not only legally impossible, but would actually constitute ''slavery'' under the U.S. Constitution. 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 a {{Vigilante}} who owned the contract, 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 voids ANY contract. While this would sway most people, the writers clearly chose to pursue HollywoodLaw (as well as VigilanteJustice) as the first in a long series of many tropes which would later characterize the series.

** After realising 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

** Why is that stupid? That's ''not how Good Samaritan laws work''. Actual Good Samaritan laws only say you can't be held liable for damage caused while honestly trying to help someone in that kind of situation. They're intended to prevent things like "your CPR managed to restart my heart but it also broke some of my ribs, therefore I will sue you for lots and lots of money."

** 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, and that's perfectly legal and understandable). There's a limited number of protected characteristics (race, religion, gender, etc.) that are the only one's you can't refuse to hire based one. Or if it's something protected by the Constitutionally-protected RuleOfFunny (Never mentioned * which* constitution).

* In ''DirtyHarry,'' the villain is released because Callahan tortures him into revealing his murder-victim's location; the moral here is that such rights just present OffOnATechnicality, which merely allows criminals to get away with murder. In reality, however, this is to prevent suspects from being forced to falsely confess, and the body of the murder-victim would be excluded by the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, since he was coerced to reveal this. All of which Harry Callahan would know, ''being a police detective'', but it's very doubtful that with such a horrible case the district attorney would choose to believe the suspect instead of him and dismiss the case, unless it was proven. Nor would it grant the killer an automatic release anyway. He had assaulted Callahan and attempted to murder him, a police detective, felonies good enough to put him away for a very long time, even life.

** That said, sometimes long forgotten laws will be brought up and used again, though this is far more common for property rights vs. railroad tracks-type-issues than criminal cases.

* The ''LethalWeapon'' movies which have far too many to count. The movies just operate under RuleOfCool and [[TheyJustDidntCare ignore anything else]].

** Dream Team: Dustin Hoffman and the two conspiring jurors. In real life, it would mean serious prison time if caught. (Just as with Hackman's own attempts at jury tampering.)
*** Wait, who was the second conspiring jurist aside from the one played by Cusack?

* In ''Manhunter'', Kate Spencer's prosecution of Shadow Thief for the murder of Ron Raymond, aka Firestorm, is ludicrous. It's hard to know where to begin, but consider the fact that Spencer calls a bunch of superheroes to testify without giving their real names. You can't testify at a trial under an alias. Secondly, most of them weren't even legitimate witnesses in the first place: they didn't actually see the crime committed, and she just asked them questions about what a hero Firestorm was, and what a great guy he was. None of that would be relevant at trial. The bizarre part is that there were other superheroes who were present at the crime and saw it happen, at least one of whom, Vixen, has a public identity and could have been called as a witness; needless to say, she wasn't.

* In a recent issue of ''{{Daredevil}}'', a judge appointed under Norman Osborn over-ruled a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal trial and sent the innocent defendants to prison, ignoring 300 years of legal precedent and the US constitution. To be fair, though, the Marvel Universe at the moment seems to be a fascist dictatorship under Osborn.

** Sometimes the reverse is true. A judge, if sufficiently convinced that no reasonable jury could reach the verdict they have reached, may issue what is called a Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict, thus overruling the jury's decision. Since in the U.S., the seventh amendment reserves the right to convict to a jury alone, the judge can only do this in the defendant's favor. Thus, if the jury finds him guilty, the judge can exonerate him. But if a jury finds him innocent, even the worst Judge Hangemall cannot overrule them to find him guilty.
*** Jury nullification is the "dam" of the jury-system: i.e. it's always a perfectly viable option for the jury, but it is also a serious breach of ethics, since it makes the jury into the trier of law, rather than of fact. For this reason, judges will not typically permit a defense-attorney to instruct a jury that they have the power to suspend the law: an example of this was an episode of ''L.A. Law,'' in which a rapist, a diplomat from a sexist country, was released on Diplomatic Immunity, and his victim killed him in revenge; in her trial, her attorney told the jury used the "temporary insanity" defense, saying that this is the ''only'' way that they could acquit her. Technically this is untrue, since they could simply suspend the law, since most people believe that such a use of Diplomatic Immunity is wrong; however the moral of the story was that lawyers can't advise juries to nullify verdicts.

** On the flip side, one perfectly legitimate and common interrogation tactic is for police to lie to suspects if they think it will help; this is in no way "entrapment".

*** That was another case of HollywoodLaw, since it ignored the defense of selective prosecution (i.e. the law cannot be applied selectively, to punish those whom it will not protect from the same offenses). The campus police had already told the Nerds outright, that fraternity pranks were "out of their jurisdiction" (which is correct, if it's considered a "social contract" among college students that they accept by enrolling there); and everything the Nerds did in their "revenge," pretty much qualified as fraternity-pranks (since they ''were'' acting as members of a fraternity, being honorary tri-Lambs). Likewise, the rape-victim, Betty Childs, didn't ''want'' to file charges, falling hopelessly in love with Lewis (he was "''that'' good" at the science of sex, as he evidenced earlier in the film). Meanwhile, the jocks got away with destroying the Nerds' house, and the police ''still'' didn't care-- a case of TruthInTelevision, since football players have been known to get away with ''murder.'' (Now, if Booger had ''actually'' "blown the fuckers up" and still gotten away with it, then THAT would have been an interesting case indeed.)

* In the first [[WaynesWorld Wayne's World]] movie, one police officer is infamous for performing cavity searches on random motorists. This is a serious felony, when performed without a warrant; while the movie, as usual, attempts to justify this under ''TheRuleOfFunny,'' it qualifies under law as rape.

* In ''Pacific Heights'', Michael Keaton engages in various outrageous illegal acts against his landlords, who become [[TheLegalVictim LegalVictims]] as they are thwarted from any recourse by a system of indifferent police, judges and attorneys, as well as Keaton using TheLoophole. This movie was a nonstop sequence of HollywoodLaw and TheLegalVictim, as well as VigilanteJustice as the victims were driven to take the law into their own hands--which the police even stated would be the only real recourse.

*** This is perhaps treated the most oddly in ''{{Law and Order}}'', where suspects always Lawyer up on the original, while almost never doing so in either of the spin offs. It's especially strange in Criminal Intent, where their detectives regularly pull things that have gotten detectives in both SVU and the original series suspended.

* The sheriff tells another cop to read the surviving Raiders their rights. The concept of the Miranda rights didn't come into existence until the Supreme Court decision in the case of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona Miranda v. Arizona (1966)]]. It's somewhere between 1901 and 1909. Miranda rights don't EXIST yet.

*** 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 privileged was used to toss it. SoYeah. Privilege doesn't work like that, especially if its a conspiracy a lawyer is involved with, and even more so that a third person whose not a spouse makes it so it never existed it.

** At least they averted this trope when he says that he might be disbarred for refusing to continue defending his client. Nevertheless, an attorney does not have the right to just quit in the middle of trial. As an officer of the court, he has to ask the Judge for permission, and no Judge would ''ever'' grant that request absent extraordinary circumstances. In reality, the Judge would have ordered Lomax to continue defending his client to the best of his ability and jailed him for contempt if he refused.
*** US law might well be different from the Westminster system, but there a lawyer ''does'' have the right to quit mid-trial -- if the client tells him he doesn't want him as his lawyer any more. No non-US judge would make a lawyer keep defending a client who doesn't want his services; that's an untenable position. And if the lawyer knows a client is guilty, he has two options: either tell the court he has an irreconcilable conflict of interest which makes it impossible for him to continue, or run the case without mounting a positive defence -- e.g no presentation of an alibi, just testing how good the prosecution's evidence is.
*** US Law has that same thing - a client can fire a lawyer, but the lawyer can't necessarily quit.
**** Most state's bar associations have something to cover this and allow lawyers to quit a case providing they have an "overriding ethical or moral impediment" to continuing to represent the client. It's the same principle that allows doctors and pharmacists to deny medical care to non-emergency patients. (It's come to light recently with Plan B in the US)

** Income Tax Evasion is a federal crime, not a state crime. Midway through the trial, the judge orders the jury switched with a jury next door. The right to pick your jurors is inherent for criminal defendants. No judge has the power to call in a jury that the parties didn't select. If the judge did, it would be grounds to overturn a conviction on appeal, and the jury next door was supposedly hearing a divorce case. Divorce cases don't have juries in the United States.
*** In RealLife, the case was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office, not the Cook County District Attorney, and tried in United States Courthouse, not the Cook County Courthouse, by a federal judge. [[RealityIsUnrealistic Surprisingly]], there was a dramatic jury switch (because Capone had got to the jurors) but it took place at the inception of the trial, not at its middle. As for the divorce jury, it's a case of AluminumChristmasTrees: Cook County in the 30s allowed a jury to decide parts of a divorce trial. Some jurisdictions (vastly in the minority) still do.

* Hollywood/TV interrogations. Real policemen do not scream and holler at the suspect, telling them 'what happened'. They keep it friendly with lots open questions 'What happened then?', ''What did you do when he said that?', 'Where did you go then?'.
** Speak for yourself. I personally have been subjected to this tactic by a pair of air marshals accompanied by a New York detective, whose favored method of interrogation appeared to be asking simultaneous leading questions and then interrupting the answers to ask more leading questions. Do not expect honor from bullies with badges and guns. When they want you to give them an excuse, they WILL try everything in their power to provoke you.
** Also, the interrogations are often done in well-lit rooms with few windows if any, and one-way glass from which an observation room can watch over the proceeding.
*** According to countless case-histories, Police tend to use any tactics that they think they can get away with; likewise, long periods of quiet questioning can make shouting more effective. Also they will tend to play "good cop - bad cop;" in real life, police know that if a suspect is too stupid to ask for a lawyer from the start, then he's ripe for the pickings.
*The OnePhoneCall. A very common misconception is that you're guaranteed by law one single phone call after you're arrested, to anyone at all, and if you blow it, too bad. That's ''not'' how it works; you have ''unlimited'' phone calls, but they can only be used to get in touch with a lawyer or someone who can help you find a lawyer (e.g., parents, spouses, well-connected friends).