History Main / HollywoodLaw

* '''[[NoBadgeNoProblem Only a Consultant]]:''' Some "consultant" who's not a sworn officer can do almost everything a cop can, and many things a cop ''can't'', such as [[NoWarrantNoProblem search a house without a warrant]] or [[PerpSweating coerce a suspect]]. Then they can brush off any challenge by saying [[LoopholeAbuse they're not a police officer at all, just a private citizen]]. This kind of thing is a more recent development thanks to shows like ''Series/{{Monk}}'', ''Series/TheMentalist'', and ''Series/{{Castle}}'' all involving "consultants" like this. Superheroes will also brush up against this, which is how Franchise/{{Batman}} can get away with things the police can't. In reality, if you work for or with the police you're bound by the same rules as them, and must have warrants etc. Assuming you don't, while this would free up some restrictions, it also means you're liable to get criminally charged or sued far more readily over e.g. breaking in somewhere to get evidence.

* '''[[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. The privilege also only applies to things which the client tells their lawyer in private with no outside witnesses (except the lawyer's employees-a clerk for instance), and doesn't cover future planned crimes (the lawyer is obligated to alert the police about those) or suborning perjury (if the lawyer hears them confess they're guilty, they can't have the client testify to being innocent later legally). It also doesn't apply to any future planned crimes the client tells their attorney about (they can report them on that).

** 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 UsefulNotes/HarveyMilk (who, as the first openly gay man elected to public office, made the trial a national sensation on a par 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.

* '''[[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. The privilege also only applies to things which the client tells their lawyer in private with no outside witnesses (except the lawyer's employees-a clerk for instance), and doesn't cover future planned crimes (the lawyer is obligated to alert the police about those) or suborning perjury (if the lawyer hears them confess they're guilty, they can't have the client testify to being innocent later legally).

** Even legally, there are limitations to "freedom of speech". The most commonly cited exception is "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre",[[note]]That one, though, comes by way of analogy, first used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. -- in justifying suppressing dissent to UsefulNotes/WorldWarI. Makes you wonder if that result would have been different after, say, UsefulNotes/TheVietnamWar. In any event, Holmes said it was ''falsely'' shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- you're absolutely free and encouraged to shout that there's a fire if there really ''is'' a fire.[[/note]] which basically says that you can't cause panic or harm by your words, and which hasn't even really been the law in the U.S. since the 1960s[[note]]It's kind of complicated -- ''Brandenburg v. Ohio'' more or less says that the only thing you can't yell is an incitement to ''immediate'' violence or criminal activity[[/note]]. Just because you're using words or expressions doesn't mean you're actually ''saying'' anything. There are things like child pornography that are not considered "speech" because it's designed only to titillate, not say anything artistic (and also it harms minors who cannot legally consent to performing sex acts on camera). One way to think about this is that if you're obviously saying something not because you ''believe'' it, but because you want to provoke a certain reaction (and you have nothing to say ''about'' that reaction), it can't really be called "speech".
** Defamation is a tricky animal because again, it's different in America than elsewhere. The United States has a two-tier system for determining slander or libel. For ordinary muggles, the standard is simple: 1) Was the statement false? 2) Was it defamatory? 3) Was it uttered or published to a third party? If the answer to all those questions is "yes", then libel has been proven and the utterer is on the hook for large monetary damages to the defendant, even if repeating a statement from someone else that they accepted at face value as the truth[[note]] The US does not have a notion of "criminal libel" as in some other countries, where the libel can rise to a criminal offense rather than a civil tort under certain aggravating circumstances[[/note]]. For public figures, such as politicians and celebrities, the determination of libel falls under the so-called "''Sullivan'' standard",[[note]]So named after the case ''[[UsefulNotes/AmericanNewspapers New York Times]] v. Sullivan'', where the "Sullivan" in question was an Alabama police commissioner who claimed to have been libelled by an advertisement in support of UsefulNotes/MartinLutherKingJr. The Supreme Court was ''quite'' bothered by the fact that Mr. Sullivan was never mentioned by name, and nobody in [[DeepSouth Alabama]] would even ''touch'' the ''New York Times'', so the only reason for the lawsuit was to shut up the newspaper[[/note]] which states that if someone sues you for libel or slander, ''they'' have to prove that not only what you said was false, but that you either knew it was false or should have known and just didn't care if it was true or false (the so-called "actual malice" standard)[[note]]This was what caught up the ''National Enquirer'' some decades ago when they lost a lawsuit against Creator/CarolBurnett. They had falsely accused Burnett, known as a prominent anti-alcoholism activist, of having a drunken row with Henry Kissinger in a trendy Washington, DC restaurant. In depositions, even the ''Enquirer's'' own informant who was on the scene said the story was not anything like that -- in truth, Burnett, known for being a gregarious sort, had been asked by a fellow patron about her desert, and she was proudly showing it off in an exuberant manner. Kissinger ''had'' been in the restaurant at the same time, but neither he nor Burnett ever crossed paths, let alone exchanged angry words. It's not even known if either was aware of the others' presence[[/note]]. In both private and public figure cases, the truth is an absolute defense -- if what you said was true, it is ''de facto'' not libellous/slanderous, even if the target considers it defamatory.[[note]]The British do have equivalents like the "fair comment" doctrine, but they're less powerful -- ''Magazine/PrivateEye'' famously tries to skirt the line and still gets sued all the time for their trouble.[[/note]] Also, there is a distinction between ''opinion'' and ''statement of fact'' in the law. This is the reason that [[Creator/PennAndTeller Penn Jillette]] had his SirSwearsALot tendencies on ''Series/PennAndTellerBullshit'' -- not because it was HBO and he could get away with it, but because calling someone an "asshole" is clearly a statement of opinion and not actionable for slander, but calling that same person a "con artist" could be considered defamatory and would have to be defended in court. Some TV shows have shown people on occasion trying to sue over being called "jackasses" or other less-than-polite epithets. In the real world, they'd be told their case is without merit even before they reached a courtroom. People might not pick up that libel and slander law works differently elsewhere, even in Canada and Britain -- in those places, the plaintiff need only prove that their reputation was harmed, and the ''defendant'' bears the burden of proving that what they said was true ''and'' warranted. Some works might cleverly point out this distinction but also get a key point wrong -- in America, the ''Sullivan'' standard only works if the defendant is a public figure, and if he's just some ordinary guy, it's almost the same as the British standard.

* '''The ChewbaccaDefense:''' It is not permitted to offer an irrelevant or unusual defence without first offering proof. An attorney cannot call unrelated witnesses or just throw accusations out willy-nilly. Nor can an attorney (usually) get away with saying patent nonsense in court and then blame the government and the system for making him say it (which is what ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'' showed in the TropeNamer scene). Interestingly, the rule doesn't apply to "closing statements"; the ''South Park'' bit was inspired by the antics of Creator/OJSimpson's lawyer Johnny Cochran, who in closing suddenly accused unidentified "Colombian drug lords" as being the real killers.
** 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 par 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.

* '''"Audience member, [[Series/ThePriceIsRight come on down!]]":''' An attorney cannot simply call an audience member to the witness stand. Witnesses ''cannot'' attend the trial or talk to other witnesses in the case before they testify. A witness may only attend the rest of the trial if it is certain that they will not be called back to the stand. The defense may call the ''prosecutor'' to the stand, but only if the judge allows it, and it's very rare for it to happen, although it was one of the many dramatic turns of the real-life [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial Scopes Trial]], which might explain its popularity in the States.[[note]]As an aside, the trial was about the constitutionality of a Tennessee law forcing schools to teach [[UsefulNotes/{{Christianity}} Biblical creationism]], and defense attorney Clarence Darrow called prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan on the basis of his being an expert on Literature/TheBible. Darrow further did this as a ploy to be called to the stand ''himself'' in exchange, where he could go on about how the teaching of creationism was stupid, but the judge threw out that testimony as not legally relevant. It was a tricky situation -- the law in question only banned the teaching of evolution, Scopes hadn't actually violated the law (it was kind of a PublicityStunt), and a number of institutions ''had'' violated the law with no consequence, so Darrow had to reach ''deep'' into his bag of tricks. He also didn't want to win at trial; he wanted to appeal a guilty verdict so that the law itself could be struck down as violating the Tennessee state constitution, but the Tennessee Supreme Court instead struck down the verdict on a technicality (that the judge set a fine of $100, the minimum the act allowed, but fines over $50 had to be set by juries).[[/note]]

* In ''WesternAnimation/TheIncredibles1'', Supers are not immune from public and legal backlash. Generally "Good Samaritan" laws would protect individuals from prosecution or lawsuits for damages or injuries that occur when responding to a crime or disaster. However, the movie does state that the lawsuit made it to "Superior Court" implying a possible reevaluation of those laws with regards to superpowered individuals because of the higher level of destruction they can cause. However, the "ruined suicide" lawsuit should have been dismissed at the outset because suicide is illegal.

* '''[[RunForTheBorder Run for a Non-Extradition Country]]:''' TV often allows criminals to get away scot-free if they can abscond to some other country which doesn't have an extradition treaty with their home country -- in America, that often means UsefulNotes/{{Brazil}}[[note]]This is mostly an anachronism -- Brazil did sign an extradition treaty with the U.S. in the 1960s. It might come from ''Film/TheProducers'', whose protagonists flee to Brazil when their scheme [[GoneHorriblyRight goes horribly right]], but it's set in 1958. Or it might come from [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Biggs Ronnie Biggs]], a participant in the British [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Train_Robbery_(1963) Great Train Robbery]] of 1963, who fled to Brazil and could not be extradited -- but that wasn't for lack of a treaty, but rather because he had a Brazilian citizen child, and at the time there was a law that said that no parent of a Brazilian citizen could be extradited.[[/note]] or UsefulNotes/{{Venezuela}}[[note]]They hate the U.S. because [[UsefulNotes/HugoChavez reasons]][[/note]]. TV fails to take into account some of the limitations on extradition:

* '''[[NoBadgeNoProblem Only a Consultant]]:''' Some "consultant" who's not a sworn officer can do almost everything a cop can, and many things a cop ''can't'', such as [[NoWarrantNoProblem search a house without a warrant]] or [[PerpSweating coerce a suspect]]. Then they can brush off any challenge by saying [[LoopholeAbuse they're not a police officer at all, just a private citizen]]. This kind of thing is a more recent development thanks to shows like ''Series/{{Monk}}'', ''Series/TheMentalist'', and ''Series/{{Castle}}'' all involving "consultants" like this. Superheroes will also brush up against this, which is how Franchise/{{Batman}} can get away with things the police can't. In reality, if you work for or with the police you're bound by the same rules as them, and must have warrants etc. Assuming you don't, while this would free up some restrictions it also means you're liable to get criminally charged or sued far more readily over e.g. breaking in somewhere to get evidence.

* '''Immunity from Prosecution:''' On TV, prosecutors will frequently bargain with reluctant witnesses who are afraid of being on the hook themselves for some other crime by offering them immunity from prosecution. This immunity then covers ''any'' crime they may have committed, whether the prosecutor knew about it beforehand or not, whether or not the witness admits to it or not. In real life, there are two types of immunity. "Transactional immunity" actually does work like this, but it's very rare[[note]]The last time it was used in the U.S. was for Monica Lewinsky and her parents in the late 1990s, and they were the first to receive it in decades[[/note]]. The other kind that is more commonly seen is "use immunity" (or "limited immunity"), which only says that the witness's ''statements'' may not be used against him in a future prosecution -- they can still try and convict him for it with other evidence. The only other way you can get this is through a pardon by the President or governor. It's related to but distinct from plea bargaining -- prosecutors will often exchange a reduced charge or sentence in exchange for testimony, but rarely full immunity.

** Defamation is a tricky animal because again, it's different in America than elsewhere. The United States has a two-tier system for determining slander or libel. For ordinary muggles, the standard is simple: 1) Was the statement false? 2) Was it defamatory? 3) Was it uttered or published to a third party? If the answer to all those questions is "yes", then libel has been proven and the utterer is on the hook for large monetary damages to the defendant, even if repeating a statement from someone else that they accepted at face value as the truth[[note]] The US does not have a notion of "criminal libel" as in some other countries, where the libel can rise to a criminal offense rather than a civil tort under certain aggravating circumstances[[/note]]. For public figures, such as politicians and celebrities, the determination of libel falls under the so-called "''Sullivan'' standard",[[note]]So named after the case ''[[UsefulNotes/AmericanNewspapers New York Times]] v. Sullivan'', where the "Sullivan" in question was an Alabama police commissioner who claimed to have been libelled by an advertisement in support of UsefulNotes/MartinLutherKingJr. The Supreme Court was ''quite'' bothered by the fact that Mr. Sullivan was never mentioned by name, and nobody in [[DeepSouth Alabama]] would even ''touch'' the ''New York Times'', so the only reason for the lawsuit was to shut up the newspaper[[/note]] which states that if someone sues you for libel or slander, ''they'' have to prove that not only what you said was false, but that you either knew it was false or should have known and just didn't care if it was true or false (the so-called "actual malice" standard)[[note]]This was what caught up the ''National Enquirer'' some decades ago when they lost a lawsuit against Creator/CarolBurnett. They had falsely accused Burnett, known as a prominent anti-alcoholism activist, of having a drunken row with Henry Kissinger in a trendy Washington, DC restaurant. In depositions, even the ''Enquirer's'' own informant who was on the scene said the story was not anything like that -- in truth, Burnett, known for being a gregarious sort, had been asked by a fellow patron about her desert, and she was proudly showing it off in an exuberant manner. Kissinger ''had'' been in the restaurant at the same time, but neither he nor Burnett ever crossed paths, let alone exchanged angry words. It's not even known if either was aware of the others' presence[[/note]]. In both private and public figure cases, the truth is an absolute defense -- if what you said was true, it is ''de facto'' not libellous/slanderous, even if the target considers it defamatory.[[note]]The British do have equivalents like the "fair comment" doctrine, but they're less powerful -- ''Magazine/PrivateEye'' famously tries to skirt the line and still gets sued all the time for their trouble.[[/note]] Also, there is a distinction between ''opinion'' and ''statement of fact'' in the law. This is the reason that [[Creator/PennAndTeller Penn Jillette]] had his SirSwearsALot tendencies on Series/PennAndTellerBullshit -- not because it was HBO and he could get away with it, but because calling someone an "asshole" is clearly a statement of opinion and not actionable for slander, but calling that same person a "con artist" could be considered defamatory and would have to be defended in court. Some TV shows have shown people on occasion trying to sue over being called "jackasses" or other less-than-polite epithets. In the real world, they'd be told their case is without merit even before they reached a courtroom. People might not pick up that libel and slander law works differently elsewhere, even in Canada and Britain -- in those places, the plaintiff need only prove that their reputation was harmed, and the ''defendant'' bears the burden of proving that what they said was true ''and'' warranted. Some works might cleverly point out this distinction but also get a key point wrong -- in America, the ''Sullivan'' standard only works if the defendant is a public figure, and if he's just some ordinary guy, it's almost the same as the British standard.

** 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 (for example, meeting someone at a bar when the law states you have to be 21 or over to get in). 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.

* '''Immunity from Prosecution:''' On TV, prosecutors will frequently bargain with reluctant witnesses who are afraid of being on the hook themselves for some other crime by offering them immunity from prosecution. This immunity then covers ''any'' crime they may have committed, whether the prosecutor knew about it beforehand or not, whether or not the witness admits to it or not. In real life, there are two types of immunity. "Transactional immunity" actually does work like this, but it's very rare[[note]]The last time it was used in the U.S. was for Monica Lewinsky and her parents in the late 1990s, and they were the first to receive it in decades[[/note]]. The other kind is "use immunity" (or "limited immunity"), which is much more common and only says that the witness's ''statements'' may not be used against him in a future prosecution -- they can still try and convict him for it with other evidence. The only other way you can get this is through a pardon by the President or governor. It's related to but distinct from plea bargaining -- prosecutors will often exchange a reduced charge or sentence in exchange for testimony, but rarely full immunity.

** In fact, sending a juvenile to prison when there is no need to is, in itself, an abuse of power, and can land judges and prosectors in serious hot water. A good example being the infamous [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal "cash for kids" scandle]].

** "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS21E22TheBobNextDoor The Bob Next Door]]": Sideshow Bob intends to kill Bart at a fictional location called Five Corners where five states' borders meet, in such a way that the crime takes place in all five states (Bob stands in the first, fires the gun in the second, the bullet travels through the third, hits Bart in the forth, who falls dead in the fifth), thus making it impossible to prosecute. In actuality, crossing state lines like this would result in Bob being charged ''federally'' with first-degree murder, with a probable death sentence given the child victim and premeditation. Also, most of the land at the real-life Four Corners is part of Native American reservations, which are federal criminal jurisdiction by default. (The Four Corners Monument, which is located hundreds of feet from where the borders actually meet due to a surveying error, is administered by the Navajo Nation.)
** In "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS7E13TwoBadNeighbors Two Bad Neighbors]]" both Bush and Ford are shown with Secret Service agents, since per the Former Presidents Act of 1958, every ex-President is entitled to lifetime Secret Service protection (provided they weren't impeached). However, Bush, and Ford driving are inaccurate, since an ex-President would not ever be allowed to drive a car themselves in real life; also when Homer goes to confront Bush, Bush asks the agents to stand down, which would never happen in real life, when the Secret Service would keep Homer at an arm's length from Bush to guard him.
* ''WesternAnimation/SpongebobSquarepants'' had an entire CourtroomEpisode where Plankton tried to sue Mr. Krabs for everything he had (including the Krabby Patty Secret Formula) after slipping in a puddle [[ForWantOfANail due to the lack of a wet floor sign]]. While most of the examples can fall under RuleOfFunny, (such as Spongebob defending Mr. Krabs despite having no training [[note]]Krabs did hire an actual lawyer, but he got injured and Spongebob was the ClosestThingWeGot[[/note]] and later nobody objecting to Spongebob [[ItMakesSenseInContext placing a mop on the witness stand]]), a case of this with no good excuse occurs at the end. The jury gives a not guilty verdict to Mr. Krabs without deliberating to review the evidence and despite the fact he likely would have lost the case in real life. [[ObfuscatingDisability Sure, Plankton was exaggerating what injuries he may or may not have had]], but the risk of injury is enough to have be found liable for negligence. Also, guilty and not guilty verdicts are only handed out in criminal trials; in civil trials (which would include a lawsuit) the defendant is instead found to be liable or not liable. [[ArsonMurderAndJaywalking Plus the jury consists of 10 people when it should be 12.]]
** Another episode has Mr. Krabs being sued again, this time for knowingly selling rotten Krabby 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 be 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.
*** This does get balanced out by the fact the judge is on the opposite end of the spectrum. He is a fan of Spongebob which leads an inevitable conflict of interest which [[KarmaHoudini Mr. Krabs exploits by effectively bribing him to get off scot-free.]]
** There is also the episode where Plankton accidentally steals a modern art piece ([[ItMakesSenseInContext don't ask]]). First, the police chase Plankton well out of their jurisdiction, [[SerialEscalation even up to the International Space Station]], which is mainly RuleOfFunny. But that excuse can't be given for what happens next. Plankton tries to evade the authorities by breaking into Spongebob's house and claims he would be arrested too since he is harboring a criminal. Except he wouldn't, as Plankton broke in and proceeded to use this threat to get him to cooperate, which is the [[HostageSituation exact opposite.]]
** Littering is shown to be SeriousBusiness in the show more than once, with penalties ranging from community service to ''prison time''. [[FridgeBrilliance Of course they all live under where pollution is a much bigger problem.]]

* In ''WesternAnimation/BatmanTheAnimatedSeries'' Poison Ivy was once disallowed from going to jail simply because she was apprehended by Batman, not a cop. Even if that were to apply in that particular case in that particular universe, there's all the ''other'' times she's escaped prison for all the ''other'' crimes she's committed (and she's not always caught after she commits a crime, even though gathered evidence implicates her.) Incidentally, in some older stories, Batman has the same legal standing as a police officer, albeit one in tights and a cape. He could also have made a citizen's arrest in any case. Ironically, if he's not an agent of the police, it'd be the opposite: requirements like MirandaRights and warrants only apply to law enforcement. Of course, he'd also have more potential liability than a police officer for misconduct. {{Justified}} by the later revelation that Task Force X exists in the DCAU, so villains are released in exchange for top-secret work, and then they have to lie about it to the public.

** In "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS17E21TheMonkeySuit The Monkey Suit]]", Flanders and Lovejoy browbeat Skinner into teaching Creationism at school, and later the mayor approves a law that makes it illegal to teach the Theory of Evolution. ''[=McLean=] vs Arkansas Board of Education'' in 1981 established that teaching creationism in schools is against the Constitution, so it should have been easy for Lisa to force the issue, though you do hear about states like Kansas trying to replace evolution with creationism and considering how everyone in Springfield is backwards and anti-intellectual (they once tried to burn Principal Skinner at the stake because of his claims that the Earth revolves around the sun), the writers probably thought it would be best just to forget that piece of Supreme Court history.

* ''WesternAnimation/HarveyBirdmanAttorneyAtLaw'' breaks just about every legal rule there is, but [[RuleOfFunny it's not exactly meant to be taken seriously by anyone.]] This was called attention to at one point; Birdman's passionate use of the insanity defense in the Devlin case actually moves the jury to tears and seems to ensure a win, but Der Spusmacher then tells Birdman that he can't use an insanity defense because it isn't a criminal trial.

** There are context clues (such as [[FreezeFrameBonus the date of the newspaper Bob sees with the article on Gazerbeam's dissappearance]]) that hints that the movie takes place shortly before the "Good Samaritan" laws became common place.

* In Pixar's ''WesternAnimation/{{Up}}'', Carl is involuntarily committed to a retirement home after he whacks a guy over the head with a cane. The guy, at the time, had been struggling with Carl over his mailbox, despite Carl's repeated demands for him to let it go. While he may have had to pay some damages as a result, a single incident borne of an obvious misunderstanding wouldn't lead to commitment, though the CorruptCorporateExecutive who wanted Carl's house might have pulled strings. After all, tampering with the mail is a federal crime. He could be prosecuted for assault (unlikely) or sued by the man, but the involuntary commitment to a retirement home is only something next-of-kin with power of attorney can do.

* ''WesternAnimation/HarveyBirdmanAttorneyAtLaw'' breaks just about every legal rule there is, but [[RuleOfFunny it's not exactly meant to be taken seriously by anyone.]] This was called attention to at one point; Birdman's passionate use of the insanity defense in the Devlin case actually moves the jury to tears and seems to ensure a win, but Der Spusmacher then tells Birdman that he can't use an insanity defense because it isn't a criminal trial.

* ''WesternAnimation/DextersLaboratory'': This is most relevant in the end of Season 2, Episode 32, Part 3: "Dexter Detention."

* In a ''WesternAnimation/TheAdventuresOfJimmyNeutronBoyGenius'' episode, the titular character (who is ten) is thrown in an adult jail and forced to work on a chain gang after being accused of a crime, before a trial. Even more ridiculous, his friends are arrested and thrown on the chain gang simply for realizing (out loud) that Jimmy wanted them to smuggle him escape tools, despite not acting on this or even having an opportunity to.

* ''WesternAnimation/TransformersAnimated'': Porter C. Powell was able to use his money and power to free Henry Masterson. Despite Masterson going on national television, declaring that he would blow up the Solar Power Plant, wiping out the state of Michigan, which would have killed at least several million people. Powell also talked Masterson's way out of punishment for his crimes in that episode. Regardless of the validity of his argument about a robot's rights, Masterson lied to the police about a Decepticon attack and nobody said anything about arresting him for that. Masterson remained on Sumdac Enterprises' payroll until Isaac Sumdac returned and fired him [[spoiler: at which point he tries murder Isaac and [[WouldHurtAChild Sari]] fails and is [[KarmaHoudiniWarranty finally arrested.]]]]
** Additionally Powell claimed the incident happen "international waters" when in reality it was just one of the great lakes (given the show's setting either Lake Erie or Lake St. Clair) however this still means that which country it took place is still in question.
* ''WesternAnimation/HarveyBirdmanAttorneyAtLaw'' breaks just about every legal rule there is, but [[RuleOfFunny it's not exactly meant to be taken seriously by anyone.]] This was called attention to at one point; Birdman's passionate use of the insanity defense in the Devlin case actually moves the jury to tears and seems to ensure a win, but Der Spusmacher then tells Birdman that he can't use an insanity defense because it isn't a criminal trial.

* In one episode of ''WesternAnimation/DudleyDoRight'', Dudley finally catches Snidely Whiplash, only for Nell to insist on defending him in court. The episode has numerous absurdly obvious legal errors (this being a comedy program, it was likely that at least some of these were intentional).
** First, even though Nell apparently had a first-rate legal mind (from reading all the law books in the Mounty Post from lack of anything else to do), she had never taken the bar exam, and thus could not serve as a barrister. There is also no evidence that the ''prosecutor'' had ever taken the bar exam either. Or the ''judge'' for that matter.
** Second, Dudley was the judge. Even if a serving police officer could act as a judge, there is no way the arresting police officer would be assigned to said case. And this wasn't the only potential conflict of interest in the participants in the court. The prosecutor was Inspector Fenwick, who was directly involved in the arrest, and was also the judge's immediate superior and the defense attorney's father. The judge had been openly courting the defense attorney for years. And the defense attorney was one of the regular victims of her client's crimes. Basically you have sufficient conflict of interest to draw the validity of the verdict into question by allowing any two of them to participate in the same trial.
** Third, Dudley overruled all of Nell's objections just so that the prosecution could win the case, without even considering whether or not he had grounds to -- at the express instruction of his commanding officer the prosecutor. This would get a real judge censured, and any conviction overturned. It might also get him and/or Inspector Fenwick disbarred for conspiring to rig a trial (Though as mentioned above, there's no evidence that either of them had ever passed the bar in the first place).
** And finally, Nell ultimately gets Snidely off through a ridiculous SocietyIsToBlame speech in her closing statement (basically claiming that if there had been some sort of program to help people who have a compulsive need to tie stuff together back when Snidely was a child, his habit wouldn't have escalated to the point where he started tying women to railroad tracks).
*** Mounties actually ''did'' [[TruthInTelevision preside over trials]] in the remote parts of a few Canadian provinces, but not where they were also the arresting officers. Judges have always been unable to hear cases in which they are also witnesses, as that would be an obvious conflict.
* ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons'':
** "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS5E20TheBoyWhoKnewtooMuch The Boy Who Knew Too Much]]", about Mayor Quimby's nephew being tried for assault, illustrates (and {{lampshade|Hanging}}s) how crazy the legal process is in Springfield. Witnesses are bribed in open court, and [[RuleOfFunny no one cares]]. The judge reopens the case knowing that doing so is grossly unconstitutional, but she "just can't say no to kids". But even aside from that, the things that ''aren't'' jokes are quite inaccurate. First, the jury is made up entirely of major cast members, when by rule no juror can be personally connected to any other juror (or the defendant, plaintiff, or any witnesses) -- that's a key part of keeping the jury impartial. Principal Skinner's presence on the jury illustrates the problem and serves as a plot point -- potential witness Bart is afraid to admit that he saw what really happened, because in doing so he would admit to a school official that he was skipping school (and for whatever reason, no-one suggests that Bart volunteer a deposition and submit his written testimony anonymously). His dad Homer is on the jury too (and deliberately holds up the deliberations in order to be sequestered in a fancy hotel), because TheMainCharactersDoEverything, and Apu is on the jury despite not yet being a U.S. citizen. Finally, the presence of new evidence which could have changed the original verdict usually ''does'' allow the case to be reopened.
** "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS13E2TheParentRap The Parent Rap]]" shows that [[ReasonableAuthorityFigure Judge Snyder]] and [[HangingJudge Judge Harm]] are both incompetent, for opposite reasons. Snyder is ''way'' too lenient, willing to let Bart off with a scolding for an admitted felony (it is suggested he's the reason Bart tends to get away with everything). Harm, on the other hand, is way too strict, handing down sentences that would likely be considered torture (and later, commits a ''very'' serious legal taboo, presiding over a case dealing with a crime in she was the victim). The episode also shows Judge Harm presiding simultaneously over juvenile and regular criminal courts (which doesn't happen in real life for the same reason you don't see an OmnidisciplinaryLawyer), as well as Snyder replacing Harm in the middle of the hearing (which wouldn't happen without the first judge's agreement, and Harm very much did ''not'' agree).
** Cruel and unusual punishment seems to be legal in the town, such as flogging, being catapulted out of the city, and torture for remembering that Skinner is not the real Skinner.
** When Homer and Ned Flanders get married to a couple of hookers in Las Vegas, and the hookers return in "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS13E7BrawlInTheFamily Brawl in the Family]]", Harm refuses to allow them to get the marriages annulled because bigamy is legal under Nevada law. But many real life Las Vegas marriages are usually annulled for reasons Homer and Ned can claim -- they were extremely drunk and already married.
** In "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS7E15BartTheFink Bart The Fink]]", Krusty gets indicted over tax evasion, so [[IntimidatingRevenueService the IRS]] [[WorkOffTheDebt has his salary heavily garnished until he pays his back taxes]], which is expected to take the rest of his life. Inexplicably, they also take most of his show's budget, which is not legal (Krusty doesn't own the station) and is a stupid idea (the show can't make any money if they can't make anything for people to watch).
** In "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS17E21TheMonkeySuit The Monkey Suit]]", Flanders and Lovejoy browbeat Skinner into teaching Creationism at school, and later the mayor approves a law that makes it illegal to teach the Theory of Evolution. ''[=McLean=] vs Arkansas Board of Education'' in 1981 established that teaching creationism in schools is against the Constitution, so it should have been easy for Lisa to force the issue, though you do hear about states like Kansas trying to replace evolution with creationism and considering how everyone in Springfield is backwards and anti-intellectual (they once tried to burn Principal Skinner at the stake because of his claims that the Earth revolves around the sun), the writers probably thought it would be best just to forget that piece of Supreme Court history.
** In "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS13E8SweetsAndSourMarge Sweets and Sour Marge]]", Marge files a lawsuit against a major sugar manufacturer, and after hearing her case Judge Snyder passes a law banning sugar from Sprinfield. A judge is only supposed to interpret existing laws, preside over trials and pass judgement, NOT make up new ones at his whim. Lampshaded at the end when Snyder strikes down the ban after acknowledging that he had no authority to enact it.
** "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS21E22TheBobNextDoor The Bob Next Door]]": Sideshow Bob intends to kill Bart at a fictional location called Five Corners where five states' borders meet, in such a way that the crime takes place in all five states (Bob stands in the first, fires the gun in the second, the bullet travels through the third, hits Bart in the forth, who falls dead in the fifth), thus making it impossible to prosecute. In actuality, crossing state lines like this would result in Bob being charged ''federally'' with first-degree murder, with a probable death sentence given the child victim and premeditation. Also, most of the land at the real-life Four Corners is part of Native American reservations, which are federal criminal jurisdiction by default. (The Four Corners Monument, which is located hundreds of feet from where the borders actually meet due to a surveying error, is administered by the Navajo Nation.)
** In "[[Recap/TheSimpsonsS7E13TwoBadNeighbors Two Bad Neighbors]]" both Bush and Ford are shown with Secret Service agents, since per the Former Presidents Act of 1958, every ex-President is entitled to lifetime Secret Service protection (provided they weren't impeached). However, Bush, and Ford driving are inaccurate, since an ex-President would not ever be allowed to drive a car themselves in real life; also when Homer goes to confront Bush, Bush asks the agents to stand down, which would never happen in real life, when the Secret Service would keep Homer at an arm's length from Bush to guard him.
* In the ''WesternAnimation/AdventuresInOdyssey'' episode "Shadow of a Doubt," pretty much every single thing about the court case is completely wrong. Whit is heavily implied to have been kept in state custody from the moment of his arrest until the trial, which is extremely unlikely given he wouldn't have been considered a flight risk, on top of being accused of a non-violent crime (theft). Then once the trial actually begins, everything about it seems to be set up to work against Whit and his defense, to the point where he basically can't defend himself (it is the state's job to prove guilt, not the defendant's job to prove innocence). The prosecutor uses prejudicial language to describe Whit in a manner that is completely inappropriate for a courtroom, badgers every single witness on the stand, and in some cases even intimidating them into giving him the answers that he wants to hear. Whit's lawyer doesn't object to any of this, neither does the judge put a stop to it. And the episode also seems to indicate that the court is not allowing for Whit's lawyer to cross-examine the witnesses or allow for a rebuttal. At one point, Whit offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for one seemingly damning piece of evidence, but the prosecutor simply cuts him off by saying he's finished with questioning. In real life, a judge would give the prosecutor a thorough dressing down for just one of these violations of Whit's basic right to due process. And then ultimately it's Whit who gives his closing argument instead of his lawyer which, while technically permissible, is considered a bad idea. And the trial seems to all have occurred in the span of a single day at most, when in reality a case of this magnitude would last days and probably even weeks.

* ''WesternAnimation/HarveyBirdmanAttorneyAtLaw'' breaks just about every legal rule there is, but [[RuleOfFunny it's not exactly meant to be taken seriously by anyone.]] This was called attention to at one point; Birdman's passionate use of the insanity defense in the Devlin case actually moves the jury to tears and seems to ensure a win, but Der Spusmacher then tells Birdman that he can't use an insanity defense because it isn't a criminal trial.

* In ''WesternAnimation/ThePowerpuffGirls1998'', the titular characters and Princess Morbucks have both spent time in a jail for adult males despite them being little girls.

* ''WesternAnimation/FamilyGuy'' has never made any claims to realism, but the some episodes stand out as dealing with the legal system specifically:
** "[[Recap/FamilyGuyS4E24Peterotica Peterotica]]" deserves special mention. Put briefly, Lois's father Carter Pewterschmitt lends Peter $5.00 (that he kept at the bottom of a jar filled with salt and razor wire) to publish Peter's erotic writings. Peter uses the $5 to make photocopies that he sells and credits Carter as publisher. One reader gets into a car accident when he decides to take his shirt off while driving and listening to a book on tape version, then sues Carter and sends his lawyer to his house to seize all of his assets because Carter is liable as publisher. In actuality, in the eyes of the law, it's the driver's own damn fault, and he can't sue anyone for his accident. Even if he could, moreover (and assuming they got past the skillful lawyers that a rich man like Carter no doubt could hire), you can't just seize people's assets in a civil case without lengthy legal processes.
** "[[Recap/FamilyGuyS11E16TwelveAndAHalfAngryMen 12 and a half angry men]]", when Mayor West is put on trial for murder, having possibly murdered an aide, has a few examples:
*** While finding completely unconnected jurors would be difficult, since Quahog is a small town and Mayor West is a very public figure (something the judge admits himself), it seems unlikely that Peter, the husband of West's sister-in-law, would be allowed to be in the jury. It's justified later when it turns out that Peter actually had jury duty the day after, and got the dates mixed up, but that opens a slew of other questions as to why he was allowed into the jury at all.
*** Brian is a dog, and therefore shouldn't have jury duty.
*** The jury ends using pieces of evidence they find themselves instead of relying on the police investigation. And that's not even accounting for the fact that one of said pieces of evidence is that [[ItMakesSenseInContext the witness didn't have big enough boobs to have witnessed the crime.]]
* ''WesternAnimation/AmericanDad'':
** The episode "The People vs. Martin Sugar". Stan finds himself on the jury for the trial of one of Roger's personas. You'd expect Stan, who began the episode rhapsodising about public service and being a moral citizen, voluntarily recuses himself because he's aware of hampering the legal process due to his connection to the defendant. Instead, due to his zealous belief that Roger needs to learn the consequences of his actions, he stays silent & ''bullies the other jurors'' to find Roger guilty (to be fair, Roger's testimony was a CheapPop and the evidence against him was credible), which the other jurors mention in court during the sentencing. Not only that, Roger recognises Stan during the opening arguments, throws several paper airplanes with notes written on them at Stan in open court, and '''''no-one notices the defendant actively trying to communicate with a jury member.'''''
* In ''WesternAnimation/BatmanTheAnimatedSeries'' Poison Ivy was once disallowed from going to jail simply because she was apprehended by Batman, not a cop. Even if that were to apply in that particular case in that particular universe, there's all the ''other'' times she's escaped prison for all the ''other'' crimes she's committed (and she's not always caught after she commits a crime, even though gathered evidence implicates her.) Incidentally, in some older stories, Batman has the same legal standing as a police officer, albeit one in tights and a cape. He could also have made a citizen's arrest in any case. Ironically, if he's not an agent of the police, it'd be the opposite: requirements like MirandaRights and warrants only apply to law enforcement. Of course, he'd also have more potential liability than a police officer for misconduct. {{Justified}} by the later revelation that Task Force X exists in the DCAU, so villains are released in exchange for top-secret work, and then they have to lie about it to the public.

* In the ''WesternAnimation/AdventuresInOdyssey'' episode "Shadow of a Doubt," pretty much every single thing about the court case is completely wrong. Whit is heavily implied to have been kept in state custody from the moment of his arrest until the trial, which is extremely unlikely given he wouldn't have been considered a flight risk, on top of being accused of a non-violent crime (theft). Then once the trial actually begins, everything about it seems to be set up to work against Whit and his defense, to the point where he basically can't defend himself (it is the state's job to prove guilt, not the defendant's job to prove innocence). The prosecutor uses prejudicial language to describe Whit in a manner that is completely inappropriate for a courtroom, badgers every single witness on the stand, and in some cases even intimidating them into giving him the answers that he wants to hear. Whit's lawyer doesn't object to any of this, neither does the judge put a stop to it. And the episode also seems to indicate that the court is not allowing for Whit's lawyer to cross-examine the witnesses or allow for a rebuttal. At one point, Whit offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for one seemingly damning piece of evidence, but the prosecutor simply cuts him off by saying he's finished with questioning. In real life, a judge would give the prosecutor a thorough dressing down for just one of these things. And then ultimately it's Whit who gives his closing argument instead of his lawyer which, while technically permissible, is considered a bad idea. And the trial seems to all have occurred in the span of a single day at most, when in reality a case of this magnitude would last days and probably even weeks.

** In the''WesternAnimation/AdventuresInOdyssey'' episode "Shadow of a Doubt," pretty much every single thing about the court case is completely wrong. Whit is heavily implied to have been kept in state custody from the moment of his arrest until the trial, which is extremely unlikely given he wouldn't have been considered a flight risk, on top of being accused of a non-violent crime (theft). Then once the trial actually begins, everything about it seems to be set up to work against Whit and his defense, to the point where he basically can't defend himself (it is the state's job to prove guilt, not the defendant's job to prove innocence). The prosecutor uses prejudicial language to describe Whit in a manner that is completely inappropriate for a courtroom, badgers every single witness on the stand, and in some cases even intimidating them into giving him the answers that he wants to hear. Whit's lawyer doesn't object to any of this, neither does the judge put a stop to it. And the episode also seems to indicate that the court is not allowing for Whit's lawyer to cross-examine the witnesses or allow for a rebuttal. At one point, Whit offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for one seemingly damning piece of evidence, but the prosecutor simply cuts him off by saying he's finished with questioning. In real life, a judge would give the prosecutor a thorough dressing down for just one of these things. And then ultimately it's Whit who gives his closing argument instead of his lawyer which, while technically permissible, is considered a bad idea. And the trial seems to all have occurred in the span of a single day at most, when in reality a case of this magnitude would last days and probably even weeks.

** 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 in the mail), and it's also addressed to the "Superior Court of New York," when the district court in New York State is the Supreme Court.[[note]]The movie writers, being located in Southern California, probably got the terminology mixed up, since it's called the Superior Court there.[[/note]]

*** Montgomery goes straight from counsel table directly into the well of the court, and then goes straight at the jury. Judges and juries really hate it when lawyers invade the personal space of the jury, and if you are aggressive about it, the bailiff will tackle you. His opening statement is also completely improper argument that should be stricken from the record.
*** Same goes for Barry. Sorry, Barry, you don't get to fly straight from counsel table directly to the ledge in front of the jury and then give your opening statement. You're invading the personal space of the jury.

** To demonstrate how the bear as the shape of a honey jar is offensive ("BEARS KILL BEES"), Barry has a muzzled grizzly bear brought into the courtroom. In addition to being completely irrelevant to the court proceedings, it goes without saying that a demonstrative cannot be a lethal animal, or probably any animal at all except for service dogs.
** During Montgomery's effort to grill Barry about his relation with Vanessa, people and bees should be making objections of relevance.
** Important to note that one of the reasons we have a legal system in the first place is so that we don't have to rely on violence to solve our problems. Yet, Adam, as bee co-counsel, gives in to his aggression and attacks the opposing party with his venomous stinger. He should be disbarred for that (or rather, ''would'' be if he had any legal credentials to begin with). And there is absolutely no way that he would be allowed to sit at counsel table anymore. The judge would probably have to declare a mistrial because of the outburst that occurred, because it's not fair to either party to have to proceed with a tainted jury as a result of Adam's bad conduct in assaulting the opposing counsel.
** The court case is done in a courtroom in New York City, rather than the Supreme Court of the United States which is in the district of Columbia, which borders Virginia and Maryland, not the state of New York. Ergo, any patent rights the bees are granted wouldn't be applied to the rest of the United States, let alone the other nations in North America, Canada and Mexico.
** The way the judge up and decided the case was also a major stretch. The judge cannot decide in the middle of the court case to just grant the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. This would be overturned on appeal immediately because the defendants have been denied their due process.

*** We see federal agents seizing honey from a woman on the street using it as a tea sweetener. There's no reason why an injunction would be granted to prevent people from using honey that's already in the stream of commerce.

** There are context clues (such as [[FreezeFrameBonus the date of the newspaper Bob sees with the article on Gazerbeam's dissappearance]]) that hints that the movie takes blance shortly before the "Good Smaritan" laws became common place.

** 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 be 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.

** There is also the episode where Plankton accidentally steals a modern art piece ([[ItMakesSenseInContext don't ask]]). First, the Police chase Plankton well out of their jurisdiction, [[SerialEscalation even up to the International Space Station]], which is mainly RuleOfFunny. But that excuse can't be given for what happens next. Plankton tries to evade the authorities by breaking into Spongebob's house and claims he would be arrested too since he is harboring a criminal. Except he wouldn't, as Plankton broke in and proceeded to use this threat to get him to cooperate, which is the [[HostageSituation exact opposite.]]

** Defamation is a tricky animal because again, it's different in America than elsewhere. The United States is famous for its "''Sullivan'' standard",[[note]]So named after the case ''[[UsefulNotes/AmericanNewspapers New York Times]] v. Sullivan'', where the "Sullivan" in question was an Alabama police commissioner who claimed to have been libelled by an advertisement in support of UsefulNotes/MartinLutherKingJr. The Supreme Court was ''quite'' bothered by the fact that Mr. Sullivan was never mentioned by name, and nobody in [[DeepSouth Alabama]] would even ''touch'' the ''New York Times'', so the only reason for the lawsuit was to shut up the newspaper[[/note]] which states that if someone sues you for libel or slander, ''they'' have to prove that not only what you said was false, but that you either knew it was false or didn't care if it was true or false (the so-called "actual malice" standard), and truth is an absolute defence -- you can always get off if what you said was true.[[note]]The British do have equivalents like the "fair comment" doctrine, but they're less powerful -- ''Magazine/PrivateEye'' famously tries to skirt the line and still gets sued all the time for their trouble.[[/note]] People might not pick up that it works differently elsewhere, even in Canada and Britain -- in those places, the plaintiff need only prove that their reputation was harmed, and the ''defendant'' bears the burden of proving that what they said was true ''and'' warranted. Some works might cleverly point out this distinction but also get a key point wrong -- in America, the ''Sullivan'' standard only works if the defendant is a public figure, and if he's just some ordinary guy, it's almost the same as the British standard.

* ''WesternAnimation/LaBalladeDesDalton'' has numerous errors:

* In a ''WesternAnimation/JimmyNeutronBoyGenius'' episode, the titular character (who is ten) is thrown in an adult jail and forced to work on a chain gang after being accused of a crime, before a trial. Even more ridiculous, his friends are arrested and thrown on the chain gang simply for realizing (out loud) that Jimmy wanted them to smuggle him escape tools, despite not acting on this or even having an opportunity to.

* During the Fairy Dance arc of ''LightNovel/SwordArtOnline'', Asuna's family tries to schedule a wedding between her and her father's protege, at the protege's insistence (mainly because her family owns the company he works for and he needs [[HeirInLaw the marriage to the CEO's daughter to get more control over the company]]—he’s the arc’s BigBad). Asuna was seventeen, so the marriage would be legal with parental consent, which it obviously had. But the problem was that Asuna was in a coma for almost the entire arc (for reasons that were the groom-to-be's fault, not that Asuna's family knew that). In a case like this, parental consent was irrelevant because Asuna was incapable of giving ''her'' consent (which she wouldn't have, as she despised him). A wedding is not legal if one party is not able to speak their vows and/or sign the license, and parental consent is not the same thing as speaking someone's vows by proxy. This is only an issue in the Anime however, as the original Light Novel version of the scene addresses these exact issues and instead has their "wedding" planned as nothing more than a symbolic gesture before Asuna's father simply adopts her would-be-groom instead.

*** [[https://youtu.be/f2kEGj-S1Tc?t=171 As put by D. James Stone]], "there's no requirement that the executor usher everyone into a room where the contents of the will will be revealed. In fact, lawyers would prefer not to do it this way since we aren't trained to break up fights like a bouncer at Scores. Lawyers prefer to fight with our words, not our fists, and wound you with a pen rather than the sword."

* The entire ''Franchise/AceAttorney'' series has a grand time zigzagging through this trope, going off of how much fun/difficult it makes the current trial. Usually the characters have no problem at all rummaging through people's stuff, but there's at least one instance where Phoenix won't let Maya read a letter in someone's apartment (never mind that they've poked through plenty of books, letters, and notes in other investigations). It's also unclear exactly whether or not the defense is allowed to poke around crime scenes. The characters usually make themselves right at home, but in ''Rise from the Ashes'', Phoenix tries to keep Ema from attracting the attention of the detective on duty. In the trials themselves, the defense and the aide can get held in contempt of court for asking a witness to make absolutely sure she got details right in her testimony (a reasonable thing to wonder, given that she ''had'' misled the court earlier, and as it turns out, ''she was still lying''), but the prosecution ''never'' seems to get in trouble for harassing, screaming at, threatening, whipping, or throwing things at the defense or the judge. Perhaps most infamously, the witnesses constantly change their stories and blatantly lie multiple times, but somehow never get in trouble for perjury. Some of this is justified in that the games were loosely based off of the Japanese legal system, which is somewhat different than the American one (no jury for starters) and the American version tries to further {{handwave}} it by setting it a decade ahead of the release date, but it's still pretty goofy.

* In ''WesternAnimation/TheIncredibles'', Supers are not immune from public and legal backlash. Generally "Good Samaritan" laws would protect individuals from prosecution or lawsuits for damages or injuries that occur when responding to a crime or disaster. However, the movie does state that the lawsuit made it to "Superior Court" implying a possible reevaluation of those laws with regards to superpowered individuals because of the higher level of destruction they can cause. However, the "ruined suicide" lawsuit should have been dismissed at the outset because suicide is illegal.