History Main / HollywoodLaw

** Another episode has Mr. Krabs being sued again, this time for knowingly selling rotten patties at the Krusty Krab ([[RealitySubtext He was capitalizing on Spongebob's popularity following a review from a famous food critic]] and rotten patties happened to yellow with spots). The problem is that the jury are all visibly ill due to the rotten patties (and include the above-mentioned food critic), which throws the idea of a fair trial out the window. Given the popularity of the Krusty Krab, either a venue change or possibly having the case handed by a higher court (if one exists) would be needed. And like in the first example, the guilty/not guilty verdict is used despite it being a civil case.

* '''"[[TotallyEighteen She said she was eighteen!]]":''' Statutory rape is handled pretty differently in real life than on TV:

** A florist cannot help sue another party in court. Vanessa is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. She also doesn't properly handle the letter that starts the lawsuit (you or a process server have to personally go down to the courthouse to file the suit, you can't just stick it the mail), and it's also addressed to the "Superior Court of New York," when the civil court in New York State is the Supreme Court[[note]]The movie writers, being located in Southern California, probably got the terminology mixed up[[/note]].

** A florist cannot help sue another party in court. Vanessa is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. She also doesn't properly handle the letter that starts the lawsuit (you or a process server have to personally go down to the courthouse to file the suit, you can't just stick in the mail), and it's also addressed to the "Superior Court of New York," when the civil court in New York State is the Supreme Court[[note]]The movie writers, being located in Southern California, probably got the terminology mixed up[[/note]].

* '''Dropping the charges:''' On TV, if a crime victim says they want to drop the charges against the perpetrator, that automatically [[GetOutOfJailFreeCard absolves the perpetrator of any consequences]]. In real life, however, once the police have been called, it's mostly out of the victim's hands; the prosecutor makes the call now. The prosecutor may agree with the victim, but they don't have to, and if they're feeling very confident about their case, they may do it even without the victim having to testify. And even if the case as it is will go absolutely nowhere without the willing testimony and co-operation of the complainant, there are almost always other charges that would have, or at least could have, been issued as "lesser included offences", that can still be brought without the complainant's assistance. Sometimes you see this with parents trying to teach their misbehaving kid a lesson -- ''i.e.'' they report them for stealing their car or credit card, thinking they'll just ScareEmStraight, only for an overzealous prosecutor to land the kid with a felony conviction. [[note]] If the kid is literally a Juvenile, this is not likely to be a big issue, as Juvenile courts are required to give Juveniles the benefit of the doubt whilst prosecuting. Although it's a ''real'' issue if the "kid" is legally an adult and wouldn't have the luxury of a lenient prosecution provided by Juvenile courts. [[/note]]

* ''Theatre/LegallyBlonde'': No judge would ever allow a criminal trial to be moved outside the courtroom, let alone ''to the crime scene''. While the point Elle is trying to make is a valid one, she'd have to find a way to make said point within the actual courtroom (the way she does in the film).

* ''Theatre/LegallyBlonde'': No judge would ever allow a criminal trial to be moved outside the courtroom, let alone ''to the crime scene''. Elle would have to find a way to impeach the witness' testimony within the confines of the courtroom the way she does in the movie.

* '''Dropping the charges:''' On TV, if a crime victim says they want to drop the charges against the perpetrator, that automatically [[GetOutOfJailFreeCard absolves the perpetrator of any consequences]]. In real life, however, once the police have been called, it's mostly out of the victim's hands; the prosecutor makes the call now. The prosecutor may agree with the victim, but they don't have to, and if they're feeling very confident about their case, they may do it even without the victim having to testify. And even if the case as it is will go absolutely nowhere without the willing testimony and co-operation of the complainant, there are almost always other charges that would have, or at least could have, been issued as "lesser included offences", that can still be brought without the complainant's assistance. Sometimes you see this with parents trying to teach their misbehaving kid a lesson -- ''i.e.'' they report them for stealing their car or credit card, thinking they'll just ScareEmStraight, only for an overzealous prosecutor to land the kid with a felony conviction.

** A related but very different take is the '''Twinkie Defense'''. This is based on the trial of Dan White, who murdered San Francisco mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk (who, as the first openly gay man elected to public office, made the trial a national sensation on a part with O.J. Simpson's). The media mocked the defense as saying "eating twinkies made him crazy". That's the popular misconception, but the truth is that White's defense was for diminished capacity (see insanity defense below) and twinkies were only mentioned in passing as ''a symptom'' not ''the cause'' of his diminished capacity. Among other things, White was always meticulous about is appearance and the food he ate; that he became slovenly and unshaved and started eating junk food like twinkies in the weeks prior to the murders were offered as evidence of mental issues. Thus the jury concluded White was guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

** On TV, if the minor swears they were of age, and the defendant had every reason to believe them, then that's considered a defence. In real life, it is not -- again, "statutory" means ''statutory'' -- and "mistake of fact" is generally not a defence. A "mistake of fact" defense is sometimes allowed, where the defendant can argue the minor had reasonably seemed older. That does not mean it will always succeed of course, and many jurdisdictions don't allow this at all. Some jurisdictions may have a "Theatre/RomeoAndJuliet exception" where one party is a minor and the other is not but less than a year older, but many do not, and a number even have such exceptions for heterosexual couples but not homosexuals (or have different ages of consent for them). It's sex -- people have hangups.

* '''Juveniles imprisoned for minor crimes''': Many shows have under-18s being sent to prison for crimes that have very little long term consquences. This is very common in children's media (possibly as a way of scaring the young audience into good behavior). In real life, juvenile courts work very differently from adult courts, with the latter being more strict when it comes to what the law says, whereas juvenile courts focus on rehabilitaion and detering children from future criminal behaviour. This is because children have less developed minds,and are prone to doing risky thing without fully understanding the consequences. As such, juvenile courts must take into account certain factors such as the child's motivations, there knowledge of the law (did the child know what they did was illegal) and, most importantly, what were the long-term damages caused by the child's action (can they make it up to the victim). Even if the child commits a felony (which in writing, require prison sentences), they will avoid incarceration if it turns out no real harm was done[[note]]A good example would be child pornography, which in many jurisdictions is still considered a felony regardless of the age the the offender and their relationship to the victim. If a 15 year old girl is being prosecuted, but it turns out she only sexted pictures of herself to her consenting boyfriend, the worst possible thing that would happen to her (providing there is no corruption or misconduct within the courtroom) is she would have her internet monitored for several months (where they can block her from using certain sites, like the one she used to post the sext), and maybe be made to attend special classes on internet safety and the dangers of sexting[[/note]]. A child will only go to prison if they do something really heinous, like murder or terrorism.

* '''[[ConfessInConfidence The Attorney-Client Privilege]]:''' In the media, ''anything'' a criminal tells a lawyer is absolutely confidential and can't be used as evidence, even if the lawyer wants to. However, "attorney-client privilege" is a narrower rule which applies only to communication between a client and lawyer for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or representation from the lawyer. That means it only applies to the client talking about the facts of his case and the lawyer giving legal advice. Anything else the lawyer and client talk about is fair game. Furthermore, it does not apply if the attorney is assisting the client in ''committing'' a crime, as a communication in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy cannot be privileged. It can also be waived by the client -- even in an implied way, if they start mouthing off in public about what their lawyer told them.

* '''Juveniles imprisoned for minor crimes''': Many shows have under-18s being sent to prison for crimes that have very little long term consquences. This is very common in children's media (possibly as a way of scaring the young audience into good behavior). In real life, juvenile courts work very differently from adult courts, with the latter being more strict when it comes to what the law says, whereas juvenile courts focus on rehabilitaion and detering children from future criminal behaviour. This is because children have less developed minds,and are prone to doing risky thing without fully understanding the consequences. As such, juvenile courts must take into account certain factors such as the child's motivations, there knowledge of the law (did the child know what they did was illegal) and, most importantly, what were the long-term damages caused by the child's action (can they make it up to the victim). Even if the child commits a felony (which in writing, require prison sentences), they will avoid incarceration if it turns out no real harm was done [[note]] A good example would be child pornography, which in many jurisdictions is still considered a felony regardless of the age the the offender and their relationship to the victim. If a 15 year old girl is being prosectuted, but it turns out she only sexted pictures of herself to her consenting boyfriend, the worst posssible thing that would happen to her (providing there is no corruption or misconduct within the courtroom) is she would have her internet monitered for several mounths (where they can block her from using certain sites, like the one she used to post the sext), and maybe be made to attend special classes on internet safety and th dangers of sexting[[/note]]. A child will only go to prison if they do something really heinous, like murder or terrorism.

It's considered one of the many AcceptableBreaksFromReality, but whether it's ''really'' acceptable is a matter of debate. Certainly, it's well within a writer's right to prioritise drama over legal accuracy, especially for works not directly related to law enforcement. It's also a useful tool to exaggerate something like a CourtroomAntic to allow the viewer to understand what an asshole the resident AmoralAttorney is being. But the controversy is that a lot of people sadly think these simplifications are TruthInTelevision, and it's highly important for people to be familiar with the ''actual'' workings of their legal system and understand their rights. TV is many viewers' only real exposure to the workings of the legal system, as most people try to avoid being thrust into it themselves. At its worst, it can cause [[BrokenAesop mistrust in the effectiveness of the legal system itself]]; if your fictional works are showing violent criminals getting OffOnATechnicality in so simple a way that a non-lawyer [[ViewersAreMorons average viewer]] can see the loophole, and people think that fiction reflects reality, they're going to start asking for a better legal system.

* Largely averted in ''WebVideo/TheTrialOfTimHeidecker''. It closely sticks to how real-life criminal proceedings in the state of California function, partially due to the fact that some of the actors playing the lawyers had actual legal experience. The only exception to this is Tim himself, who [[AFoolForAClient goes ''pro se'']], makes a fool of himself, and gets two ContemptOfCourt citations in one day.

* '''Juveniles imprisoned for minor crimes''': Many shows have under-18s being sent to prison for crimes that have very little long term consquences. This is very common in children's media (possibly as a way of scaring the young audience into good behavior). In real life, juvenile courts work very differently from adult courts, with the latter being more strict when it comes to what the law says, whereas juvenile courts focus on rehabilitaion and detering children from future criminal behaviour. This is because children have less developed minds, and are prone to doing risky thing without fully understanding the consequences. As such, juvenile courts must take into account certain factors such as the childs motivations, there knowledge of the law (did the child know what they did was illegal) and, most importantly, what were the long term damages caused by the childs action (can they make it up to the victim). Even if the child commits a felony (which in writing, require prison sentences), they will avoid incarciration if it turns out no real harm was done. A child will only go to prison if they do something realy heinous, like murder or terrorism.

** If it means something other than what an ordinary person would understand it to mean (some people believe that "legalese" means that even if you ''do'' understand it, it [[YouKeepUsingThatWord doesn't mean what you think it means]], but you can only be said to agree to what you understood the contract to mean);

** It's important to distinguish between "freedom of speech" as a legal right and as a societal aspiration. The First Amendment only covers what the ''government'' can do -- it has to do with whether you can be prosecuted for expressing your opinion. Whether or not a private entity can censor you is entirely up to them, and that includes websites like Website/{{Facebook}} and Website/{{Twitter}} that are basically as big as countries in their own right. Heck, ''we'' don't have total freedom of speech on [[Wiki/TVTropes This Very Wiki]] -- we've banned people for hateful opinions because they violate Administrivia/TheTropingCode. There are a few grey areas between public and private (''e.g.'' public schools, airports), but that's what the morass of First Amendment jurisprudence has tried to untangle. It's also important to note that the societal aspiration to "free speech" is a very American thing, and it's weaker in other countries; many people, even the freest of thinkers, value social stability over the ability to say controversial things and view the American obsession with "free speech" as a way of "saying stupid things for the sake of saying them".

* '''Dropping the charges:''' On TV, if a crime victim says they want to drop the charges against the perpetrator, that automatically [[GetOutOfJailFreeCard absolves the perpetrator of any consequences]]. In real life, however, once the police have been called, it's mostly out of the victim's hands; the prosecutor makes the call now. The prosecutor may agree with the victim, but they don't have to, and if they're feeling very confident about their case, they may do it even without the victim having to testify. Sometimes you see this with parents trying to teach their misbehaving kid a lesson -- ''i.e.'' they report them for stealing their car or credit card, thinking they'll just ScareEmStraight, only for an overzealous prosecutor to land the kid with a felony conviction.