Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 61 (click to see context) from:
* It also needs to be remembered that an appeal is not a rehearing of the original case. Appellate courts will almost always defer to the original court's finding of fact, unless it is patently wrong. What an appeal does is review whether the lower court erred in its application of law to the case, or whether proper procedures were followed or whether the action was constitutional, or within powers and so on. Grounds of appeal are thus usually quite narrow (exceptions exist in some countries where the same cases actually ''are'' tried in the appeals courts again, such as Italy, but this just makes the appeals process even more time-consuming, as you'd except).
to:
* It also needs to be remembered that an appeal is not a rehearing of the original case. Appellate courts will almost always defer to the original court's finding of fact, unless it is patently wrong. What an appeal does is review whether the lower court erred in its application of law to the case, or whether proper procedures were followed or whether the action was constitutional, or within powers and so on. Grounds of appeal are thus usually quite narrow (exceptions exist in some countries where the same cases actually ''are'' tried in the appeals courts again, such as Italy, but this just makes the appeals process even more time-consuming, as you'd except).expect).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
revised for exactness and terminology
Changed line(s) 62 (click to see context) from:
* Finally as you go higher in the appeals process in most jurisdictions you need to first obtain leave from the court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely granted-the US Supreme Court grants leave to 100 cases a year, out of 10,000 applications! The court simply doesn't have time to listen to every appeal. Instead, it tries to prioritize cases which have greater national interest. Having two district courts reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
to:
* Finally Finally, as you go higher in the appeals process process, in most jurisdictions jurisdictions, you need to first obtain leave (in some jurisdictions called ''certiorari,'' from the Latin "to be informed") from the court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts in judicial systems with two levels of appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely granted-the US Supreme Court grants leave ''certiorari'' to 100 cases a year, out of 10,000 applications! The court simply doesn't have time to listen to every appeal. Instead, it tries to prioritize cases which have greater national interest. Having two district the courts of appeals in two circuits reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 20,21 (click to see context) from:
* ''Film/{{Pleasantville}}''. The anti-color laws violate First Amendment and the authorities refuse to give the hero a lawyer when he requests one on the grounds that they want things to remain pleasant.
* ''Film/ErnestGoesToJail''. There is actually mention of a higher court - but it's refused to hear Felix Nash's case, meaning that Ernest P. Worrell (Who has been switched with Nash in jail) is going to the chair.
* ''Film/ErnestGoesToJail''. There is actually mention of a higher court - but it's refused to hear Felix Nash's case, meaning that Ernest P. Worrell (Who has been switched with Nash in jail) is going to the chair.
to:
* ''Film/{{Pleasantville}}''. The anti-color laws violate the First Amendment and the authorities refuse to give the hero a lawyer when he requests one on the grounds that they want things to remain pleasant.
* ''Film/ErnestGoesToJail''. There is actually mention of a higher court - but it's refused to hear Felix Nash's case, meaning that Ernest P. Worrell(Who (who has been switched with Nash in jail) is going to the chair.
* ''Film/ErnestGoesToJail''. There is actually mention of a higher court - but it's refused to hear Felix Nash's case, meaning that Ernest P. Worrell
Changed line(s) 25,27 (click to see context) from:
* Usually part of the [[MindScrew maddening]] {{Crapsack World}}s Creator/FranzKafka's characters are forced to deal with. Subverted in ''The Trial''. The Law described as having many strong, powerful guards by a series of doors, and past each guard is a stronger guard. Even if K. was able to get his case appealed to a higher up, he'd still be condemned guilty sooner or later.
* In ''The Appeal'' by John Grisham, the case being subjected to the title appeal is being reviewed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. [[spoiler: After the court overturns the verdict, the litigants' lawyers say they'll appeal to the US District court and the US Supreme court, but that chances of anything helping them will be so slim as to be non-existent.]] In this case, there ''is'' a higher court, but it doesn't matter.
* Also averted, somewhat, in ''The Chamber'' (the book, not the movie), when the lawyer Adam ultimately comes up with 4 legal challenges to the death penalty and files them in Mississippi Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. In some cases, the Mississippi Supreme Court is the one that shoots down the challenges, and in others, it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court consistently denies the opportunity to hear the case.
* In ''The Appeal'' by John Grisham, the case being subjected to the title appeal is being reviewed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. [[spoiler: After the court overturns the verdict, the litigants' lawyers say they'll appeal to the US District court and the US Supreme court, but that chances of anything helping them will be so slim as to be non-existent.]] In this case, there ''is'' a higher court, but it doesn't matter.
* Also averted, somewhat, in ''The Chamber'' (the book, not the movie), when the lawyer Adam ultimately comes up with 4 legal challenges to the death penalty and files them in Mississippi Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. In some cases, the Mississippi Supreme Court is the one that shoots down the challenges, and in others, it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court consistently denies the opportunity to hear the case.
to:
* Usually part of the [[MindScrew maddening]] {{Crapsack World}}s Creator/FranzKafka's characters are forced to deal with. Subverted in ''The Trial''. The Law is described as having many strong, powerful guards by a series of doors, and past each guard is a stronger guard. Even if K. was able to get his case appealed to a higher up, court, he'd still be condemned guilty sooner or later.
* In ''The Appeal'' by John Grisham, the case being subjected to the title appeal is being reviewed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. [[spoiler: After the court overturns the verdict, the litigants' lawyers say they'll appeal to the US Districtcourt Court and the US Supreme court, Court, but that chances of anything helping them will be so slim as to be non-existent.]] In this case, there ''is'' a higher court, but it doesn't matter.
* Also averted, somewhat, in ''The Chamber'' (the book, not the movie), when the lawyer Adam ultimately comes up with 4 legal challenges to the death penalty and files them in Mississippi Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. In some cases, the Mississippi Supreme Court is the one that shoots down the challenges, and in others, it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court consistentlydenies the opportunity refuses to hear the case.case (they only take a small number of those filed).
* In ''The Appeal'' by John Grisham, the case being subjected to the title appeal is being reviewed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. [[spoiler: After the court overturns the verdict, the litigants' lawyers say they'll appeal to the US District
* Also averted, somewhat, in ''The Chamber'' (the book, not the movie), when the lawyer Adam ultimately comes up with 4 legal challenges to the death penalty and files them in Mississippi Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. In some cases, the Mississippi Supreme Court is the one that shoots down the challenges, and in others, it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court consistently
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* Also averted in ''Series/{{JAG}}'' where both Harm & Mac argues before the Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces, and Chegwidden once prepared to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court. Played straight in the episode "Tribunal" where the fictional Number 3 in Al-Qaeda is sentenced to death by a military commission.
to:
* Also averted in ''Series/{{JAG}}'' where both Harm & Mac argues argue before the US Court of Appeal Appeals for the Armed Forces, and Chegwidden once prepared to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court. Played straight in the episode "Tribunal" where the fictional Number 3 in Al-Qaeda is sentenced to death by a military commission.
Changed line(s) 52 (click to see context) from:
** Judge Snyder has unilaterally banned multiple things from Springfield (such as sugar) and his authority in the matter is never questioned, nor does anyone ever seem to think to just driving their car over to Shelbyville where the judge's far-reaching authority stops.
to:
** Judge Snyder has unilaterally banned multiple things from Springfield (such as sugar) and his authority in the matter is never questioned, nor does anyone ever seem to think to about just driving their car over to Shelbyville where the judge's far-reaching authority stops.
Changed line(s) 57,58 (click to see context) from:
* Note that just because there ARE appeal courts in the real world doesn't mean that local governments or judges don't do anything illegal or that unconstitutional actions are always challenged. The process of bringing a lawsuit is extremely slow and extremely expensive and requires someone who is injured by the illegal action to bring a suit -- just because something is unconstitutional doesn't necessarily mean that it is subject to judicial review.
* That bit about "somebody who is injured by the illegal action" can get downright insidious in the U.S. because of something called the "standing doctrine." Long story short, not only do you need to be affected by a law, if you stop being affected you lose the right to bring suit. For decades, this stopped anybody from challenging anti-abortion laws because nobody could bring a lawsuit to the supreme court within nine months (Roe v. Wade was finally given a pass on the previous strict requirements); today, many otherwise killer First Amendment lawsuits against schools get tossed out because the district manages to stall the case until the wronged student graduates.
* That bit about "somebody who is injured by the illegal action" can get downright insidious in the U.S. because of something called the "standing doctrine." Long story short, not only do you need to be affected by a law, if you stop being affected you lose the right to bring suit. For decades, this stopped anybody from challenging anti-abortion laws because nobody could bring a lawsuit to the supreme court within nine months (Roe v. Wade was finally given a pass on the previous strict requirements); today, many otherwise killer First Amendment lawsuits against schools get tossed out because the district manages to stall the case until the wronged student graduates.
to:
* Note that just because there ARE appeal courts in the real world doesn't mean that local governments or judges don't do anything illegal or that unconstitutional actions are always challenged. The process of bringing a lawsuit is extremely slow and extremely expensive and requires someone who is injured by the illegal action to bring a suit -- just because something is unconstitutional doesn't necessarily mean that it is subject going to judicial review.
be heard by a court.
* That bit about "somebody who is injured by the illegal action" can get downright insidious in the U.S. because of something called the "standing doctrine." Long story short, not only do you need to be affected by a law, if you stop being affected you lose the right to bring suit. For decades, this stopped anybody from challenging anti-abortion laws because nobody could bring a lawsuit to thesupreme court US Supreme Court within nine months (Roe v. Wade was finally given a pass on the previous strict requirements); today, many otherwise killer First Amendment lawsuits against schools get tossed out because the district manages to stall the case until the wronged student graduates.
* That bit about "somebody who is injured by the illegal action" can get downright insidious in the U.S. because of something called the "standing doctrine." Long story short, not only do you need to be affected by a law, if you stop being affected you lose the right to bring suit. For decades, this stopped anybody from challenging anti-abortion laws because nobody could bring a lawsuit to the
Changed line(s) 60,62 (click to see context) from:
* Litigation is a very expensive endeavor and an appeal means more costs are incurred. Often times in real life it is easier for the defeated litigant to pay up than to go for an appeals process which will consume even more of his resources and time.
* It also needs to be remembered that an appeal is not a rehearing of the original case. Appellate courts will almost always defer to the original court's finding of fact, unless it is patently wrong. What an appeal does is review whether the lower forum erred in its application of law to the case, or whether proper procedures were followed or whether the action was constitutional, or within powers and so on. Grounds of appeal are thus usually quite narrow.
* Finally as you go higher in the appeal process in most jurisdictions you need to first obtain leave from the Court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't even be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely granted-the US Supreme Court grants leave to 100 cases a year, out of 10,000 applications! The court simply doesn't have time to listen to every appeal. Instead, it tries to prioritize cases which have greater national interest. Having two district courts reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
* It also needs to be remembered that an appeal is not a rehearing of the original case. Appellate courts will almost always defer to the original court's finding of fact, unless it is patently wrong. What an appeal does is review whether the lower forum erred in its application of law to the case, or whether proper procedures were followed or whether the action was constitutional, or within powers and so on. Grounds of appeal are thus usually quite narrow.
* Finally as you go higher in the appeal process in most jurisdictions you need to first obtain leave from the Court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't even be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely granted-the US Supreme Court grants leave to 100 cases a year, out of 10,000 applications! The court simply doesn't have time to listen to every appeal. Instead, it tries to prioritize cases which have greater national interest. Having two district courts reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
to:
* Litigation is a very expensive endeavor and an appeal means more costs are incurred. Often times in real life it is easier for the defeated litigant to pay up than to go for through an appeals process which will consume even more of his resources and time.
* It also needs to be remembered that an appeal is not a rehearing of the original case. Appellate courts will almost always defer to the original court's finding of fact, unless it is patently wrong. What an appeal does is review whether the lowerforum court erred in its application of law to the case, or whether proper procedures were followed or whether the action was constitutional, or within powers and so on. Grounds of appeal are thus usually quite narrow.
narrow (exceptions exist in some countries where the same cases actually ''are'' tried in the appeals courts again, such as Italy, but this just makes the appeals process even more time-consuming, as you'd except).
* Finally as you go higher in theappeal appeals process in most jurisdictions you need to first obtain leave from the Court court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't even be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely granted-the US Supreme Court grants leave to 100 cases a year, out of 10,000 applications! The court simply doesn't have time to listen to every appeal. Instead, it tries to prioritize cases which have greater national interest. Having two district courts reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
* It also needs to be remembered that an appeal is not a rehearing of the original case. Appellate courts will almost always defer to the original court's finding of fact, unless it is patently wrong. What an appeal does is review whether the lower
* Finally as you go higher in the
Deleted line(s) 65 (click to see context) :
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* The [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_%28county_clerk%29 Kim Davis controversy]] is a very good idea of a subversion - there ''is'' a higher court but it doesn't matter when you are clearly in the wrong.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Judge Snyder also has the legal authority to give an outsider the name, job title and mother of a citizen of Springfield, he has the power to expel said citizen from the city, and the power to have anyone who brings up the changes tortured.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* Averted in ''Series/HatfieldsAndMcCoys'' after the [[=McCoys=]] start paying bounty hunters to kidnap Hatfields in West Virginia and bring them to Kentucky to stand trial. The legality of this is quickly challenged by West Virginia and the case is appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. The Court seemingly rules in favor of the Hatfields but allows for LoopholeAbuse where they are released and then immediately rearrested. After the trial that ended the feud, "Wall" Hatfield, a lawyer and a judge, plans to appeal his sentence but dies in prison before the appeal process gets anywhere.
to:
* Averted in ''Series/HatfieldsAndMcCoys'' after the [[=McCoys=]] [=McCoys=] start paying bounty hunters {{bounty hunter}}s to kidnap Hatfields in West Virginia and bring them to Kentucky to stand trial. The legality of this is quickly challenged by West Virginia and the case is appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. The Court seemingly rules in favor of the Hatfields but allows for LoopholeAbuse where they are released and then immediately rearrested. After the trial that ended the feud, "Wall" Hatfield, a lawyer and a judge, plans to appeal his sentence but dies in prison before the appeal process gets anywhere.
Changed line(s) 56,59 (click to see context) from:
* This last loophole has received some attention, however, and it is possible that the courts might be willing in the future to entertain jurisdiction after graduation under the doctrine that standing exists when the behavior is "capable of repetition yet evading review" (i.e. when the case is likely to become moot before it can work its way through the legal system) or is stopped as a result of "voluntary cessation" (i.e. when they just stop doing it whenever you threaten to sue; this is most common in pollution cases).
* Litigation is a very expensive endeavor and an appeal means more costs are incurred. Often time in real life it is easier for the defeated litigant to pay up than to go for an appeals process which will consume even more of his resources and time.
* It also needs to be remembered that an appeal is not a rehearing of the original case, appellate courts will almost always defer to the original courts finding of fact, unless it is patently wrong. What an appeal does is review whether the lower forum erred in its application of law to the case, or whether proper procedures were followed or whether the action was constitutional, or within powers and so on. Grounds of appeal are thus usually quite narrow.
* Finally as you go higher in the appeal process in most jurisdictions you need to first obtain leave from the Court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't even be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely granted, the US Supreme Court grants leave to 100 cases a year; out of 10,000 applications! The court simply doesn't have time to listen to every appeal. Instead, it tries to prioritize cases which have greater national interest. Having two district courts reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
* Litigation is a very expensive endeavor and an appeal means more costs are incurred. Often time in real life it is easier for the defeated litigant to pay up than to go for an appeals process which will consume even more of his resources and time.
* It also needs to be remembered that an appeal is not a rehearing of the original case, appellate courts will almost always defer to the original courts finding of fact, unless it is patently wrong. What an appeal does is review whether the lower forum erred in its application of law to the case, or whether proper procedures were followed or whether the action was constitutional, or within powers and so on. Grounds of appeal are thus usually quite narrow.
* Finally as you go higher in the appeal process in most jurisdictions you need to first obtain leave from the Court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't even be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely granted, the US Supreme Court grants leave to 100 cases a year; out of 10,000 applications! The court simply doesn't have time to listen to every appeal. Instead, it tries to prioritize cases which have greater national interest. Having two district courts reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
to:
* Litigation is a very expensive endeavor and an appeal means more costs are incurred. Often
* It also needs to be remembered that an appeal is not a rehearing of the original
* Finally as you go higher in the appeal process in most jurisdictions you need to first obtain leave from the Court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't even be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
[[AC:{{Film}}]]
to:
Changed line(s) 20,33 (click to see context) from:
[[AC:{{Literature}}]]
* Usually part of the [[MindScrew maddening]] {{Crapsack World}}s Creator/FranzKafka's characters are forced to deal with.
** Subverted in ''The Trial.'' The Law described as having many strong, powerful guards by a series of doors, and past each guard is a stronger guard. Even if K. was able to get his case appealed to a higher up, he'd still be condemned guilty sooner or later.
* In ''The Appeal'' by John Grisham, the case being subjected to the titular appeal is being reviewed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. [[spoiler: After the court overturns the verdict, the litigants' lawyers say they'll appeal to the US District court and the US Supreme court, but that chances of anything helping them will be so slim as to be non-existent.]] In this case, there ''is'' a higher court, but it doesn't matter.
** Also averted, somewhat, in ''The Chamber'' (the book, not the movie), when the lawyer Adam ultimately comes up with 4 legal challenges to the death penalty and files them in Mississippi Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. In some cases, the Mississippi Supreme Court is the one that shoots down the challenges, and in others, it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court consistently denies the opportunity to hear the case.
* DoubleSubverted in ''Literature/ToKillAMockingbird''. Atticus Finch was going to appeal Tom's case, but [[spoiler: Tom was shot to death, [[TheCoronerDothProtestTooMuch allegedly for trying to escape]].]]
[[AC:{{Live-Action TV}}]]
* In ''{{Ed}}'', a judge would decide the punishment of people before him with a Wheel-of-Fortune-style implement. He seemed to have been doing that for a while before the protagonist discussed it with him...
* Thoroughly averted in the ''LawAndOrder'' franchise, where appeals to higher courts are a frequent part of the "Law" half of each show.
* Also averted in ''Series/{{JAG}}'' where both Harm & Mac argues before the Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces, and Chegwidden once prepared to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court.
** Played straight in the episode "Tribunal" where the fictional Number 3 in Al-Qaeda is sentenced to death by a military commission.
* ''DoctorWho'': [[AGodAmI "I am The Doctor. If you don't like it, if you want to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It stops with me."]]
to:
[[folder:Literature]]
* Usually part of the [[MindScrew maddening]] {{Crapsack World}}s Creator/FranzKafka's characters are forced to deal
**
* In ''The Appeal'' by John Grisham, the case being subjected to the
* DoubleSubverted in ''Literature/ToKillAMockingbird''. Atticus Finch was going to appeal Tom's case, but
[[AC:{{Live-Action TV}}]]
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Live-Action TV]]
* In
* Thoroughly averted in the
* Also averted in ''Series/{{JAG}}'' where both Harm & Mac argues before the Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces, and Chegwidden once prepared to argue before the U.S. Supreme
**
*
Changed line(s) 35,36 (click to see context) from:
[[AC:VideoGames]]
* In ''Franchise/AceAttorney'', the trials you take part in are essentially ''hearings'', supposedly to determine whether the defendant is guilty ''enough'' for a real trial - a "guilty" verdict just means they get taken off screen and tried for real. They're usually not treated as anything less then "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty". Since the Ace Attorney games are Japanese, and therefore based on the Japanese system rather than American, they [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7530-Phoenix-Wrights-Objection apparently take a lot of actual influence from that system.]]
* In ''Franchise/AceAttorney'', the trials you take part in are essentially ''hearings'', supposedly to determine whether the defendant is guilty ''enough'' for a real trial - a "guilty" verdict just means they get taken off screen and tried for real. They're usually not treated as anything less then "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty". Since the Ace Attorney games are Japanese, and therefore based on the Japanese system rather than American, they [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7530-Phoenix-Wrights-Objection apparently take a lot of actual influence from that system.]]
to:
[[folder:Video Games]]
* PlayedWith in ''VideoGame/LiberalCrimeSquad'': while your Liberals can't ask for review to an higher court, Supreme Court's ruling are one of the ways to influence the issues.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Visual Novels]]
* In ''Franchise/AceAttorney'', the trials you take part in are essentially ''hearings'', supposedly to determine whether the defendant is guilty ''enough'' for a real trial
Changed line(s) 39,42 (click to see context) from:
* PlayedWith in ''LiberalCrimeSquad'': while your Liberals can't ask for review to an higher court, Supreme Court's ruling are one of the ways to influe on the issues.
[[AC:WesternAnimation]]
* In ''TheSimpsons'', the mayor at one point discovers that the city of Springfield actually has an old and unenforced law banning the sale of alcohol. Therein, anyone convicted of possessing alcohol in Springfield was to be punished "by catapult" as in being flung into the next county with one. Then it turns out that the 200 year old law was repealed 199 years ago anyway. The old man who discovered the law suddenly realized there were more words on the parchment.
[[AC:WesternAnimation]]
* In ''TheSimpsons'', the mayor at one point discovers that the city of Springfield actually has an old and unenforced law banning the sale of alcohol. Therein, anyone convicted of possessing alcohol in Springfield was to be punished "by catapult" as in being flung into the next county with one. Then it turns out that the 200 year old law was repealed 199 years ago anyway. The old man who discovered the law suddenly realized there were more words on the parchment.
to:
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Western Animation]]
*PlayedWith in ''LiberalCrimeSquad'': while your Liberals can't ask for review to an higher court, Supreme Court's ruling are one of the ways to influe on the issues.
[[AC:WesternAnimation]]
* In ''TheSimpsons'', the''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons'':
** The mayor at one point discovers that the city of Springfield actually has an old and unenforced law banning the sale of alcohol. Therein, anyone convicted of possessing alcohol in Springfield was to be punished "by catapult" as in being flung into the next county with one. Then it turns out that the200 year old 200-year-old law was repealed 199 years ago anyway. The old man who discovered the law suddenly realized there were more words on the parchment.
[[folder:Western Animation]]
*
[[AC:WesternAnimation]]
* In ''TheSimpsons'', the
** The mayor at one point discovers that the city of Springfield actually has an old and unenforced law banning the sale of alcohol. Therein, anyone convicted of possessing alcohol in Springfield was to be punished "by catapult" as in being flung into the next county with one. Then it turns out that the
Changed line(s) 44,48 (click to see context) from:
[[AC:RealLife]]
* Note that just because there ARE appeal courts in the real world doesn't mean that local governments or judges don't do anything illegal or that unconstitutional actions are always challenged. The process of bringing a lawsuit is extremely slow and extremely expensive and requires someone who is injured by the illegal action to bring a suit--just because something is unconstitutional doesn't necessarily mean that it is subject to judicial review.
** That bit about "somebody who is injured by the illegal action" can get downright insidious in the U.S. because of something called the "standing doctrine." Long story short, not only do you need to be affected by a law, if you stop being affected you lose the right to bring suit. For decades, this stopped anybody from challenging anti-abortion laws because nobody could bring a lawsuit to the supreme court within nine months (Roe v. Wade was finally given a pass on the previous strict requirements); today, many otherwise killer First Amendment lawsuits against schools get tossed out because the district manages to stall the case until the wronged student graduates.
*** This last loophole has received some attention, however, and it is possible that the courts might be willing in the future to entertain jurisdiction after graduation under the doctrine that standing exists when the behavior is "capable of repetition yet evading review" (i.e. when the case is likely to become moot before it can work its way through the legal system) or is stopped as a result of "voluntary cessation" (i.e. when they just stop doing it whenever you threaten to sue; this is most common in pollution cases).
to:
[[folder:Real Life]]
* Note that just because there ARE appeal courts in the real world doesn't mean that local governments or judges don't do anything illegal or that unconstitutional actions are always challenged. The process of bringing a lawsuit is extremely slow and extremely expensive and requires someone who is injured by the illegal action to bring a
Changed line(s) 51,56 (click to see context) from:
* Finally as you go higher in the appeal process in most jurisdictions you need to first obtain leave from the Court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't even be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely granted, the US Supreme Court grants leave to 100 cases a year; out of 10,000 applications! The court simply doesn't have time to listen to every appeal. Instead, it tries to prioritize cases which have greater national interest.
** Having two district courts reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
----
<<|YouFailLawForever|>>
<<|CrimeAndPunishmentTropes|>>
** Having two district courts reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
----
<<|YouFailLawForever|>>
<<|CrimeAndPunishmentTropes|>>
to:
* Finally as you go higher in the appeal process in most jurisdictions you need to first obtain leave from the Court before they will even hear your appeal; if they refuse, your appeal won't even be heard. Usually this is the case with higher appellate courts. Leave is indeed very rarely granted, the US Supreme Court grants leave to 100 cases a year; out of 10,000 applications! The court simply doesn't have time to listen to every appeal. Instead, it tries to prioritize cases which have greater national interest.
**interest. Having two district courts reach opposite conclusions in similar cases also tends to increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take the case, in order to get the issue definitively settled.
----
<<|YouFailLawForever|>>
<<|CrimeAndPunishmentTropes|>>settled.
[[/folder]]
----
**
----
<<|YouFailLawForever|>>
<<|CrimeAndPunishmentTropes|>>
[[/folder]]
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19,20 (click to see context) from:
* ''ErnestGoesToJail''. There is actually mention of a higher court - but it's refused to hear Felix Nash's case, meaning that Ernest P. Worrell (Who has been switched with Nash in jail) is going to the chair.
to:
* ''ErnestGoesToJail''.''Film/ErnestGoesToJail''. There is actually mention of a higher court - but it's refused to hear Felix Nash's case, meaning that Ernest P. Worrell (Who has been switched with Nash in jail) is going to the chair.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
to:
* Averted in ''Series/HatfieldsAndMcCoys'' after the [[=McCoys=]] start paying bounty hunters to kidnap Hatfields in West Virginia and bring them to Kentucky to stand trial. The legality of this is quickly challenged by West Virginia and the case is appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. The Court seemingly rules in favor of the Hatfields but allows for LoopholeAbuse where they are released and then immediately rearrested. After the trial that ended the feud, "Wall" Hatfield, a lawyer and a judge, plans to appeal his sentence but dies in prison before the appeal process gets anywhere.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 36 (click to see context) from:
* In ''AceAttorney'', the trials you take part in are essentially ''hearings'', supposedly to determine whether the defendant is guilty ''enough'' for a real trial - a "guilty" verdict just means they get taken off screen and tried for real. They're usually not treated as anything less then "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty". Since the Ace Attorney games are Japanese, and therefore based on the Japanese system rather than American, they [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7530-Phoenix-Wrights-Objection apparently take a lot of actual influence from that system.]]
to:
* In ''AceAttorney'', ''Franchise/AceAttorney'', the trials you take part in are essentially ''hearings'', supposedly to determine whether the defendant is guilty ''enough'' for a real trial - a "guilty" verdict just means they get taken off screen and tried for real. They're usually not treated as anything less then "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty". Since the Ace Attorney games are Japanese, and therefore based on the Japanese system rather than American, they [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7530-Phoenix-Wrights-Objection apparently take a lot of actual influence from that system.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
There was an appeal, most of which was rejected. The excessive fine was sufficient for them to remand the case along with a strong suggestion that it be dropped.
Changed line(s) 15,16 (click to see context) from:
* Averted in ''Film/InheritTheWind'', which was based on the Scopes Monkey Trial. The appeal isn't shown in the film, but Cates (the Scopes-analogue) and his lawyer discuss making an appeal.
** In the case the film was based on, there was no appeal, as the verdict was overturned on a technicality (the fine assessed was higher than the law allowed).
** In the case the film was based on, there was no appeal, as the verdict was overturned on a technicality (the fine assessed was higher than the law allowed).
to:
* Averted in ''Film/InheritTheWind'', which was based (loosely) on the Scopes Monkey Trial. The appeal isn't shown in the film, but Cates (the Scopes-analogue) and his lawyer discuss making an appeal.
** In the case the film was based on,there was no appeal, as the verdict was overturned on a technicality (the fine assessed was higher than the law allowed).
** In the case the film was based on,
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
add information on voluntary cessation
Changed line(s) 48 (click to see context) from:
*** This last loophole has received some attention, however, and it is possible that the courts might be willing in the future to entertain jurisdiction after graduation under the doctrine that standing exists when the behavior is "capable of repetition yet evading review" (i.e. when they just stop doing it whenever you threaten to sue; this is most common in pollution cases).
to:
*** This last loophole has received some attention, however, and it is possible that the courts might be willing in the future to entertain jurisdiction after graduation under the doctrine that standing exists when the behavior is "capable of repetition yet evading review" (i.e. when the case is likely to become moot before it can work its way through the legal system) or is stopped as a result of "voluntary cessation" (i.e. when they just stop doing it whenever you threaten to sue; this is most common in pollution cases).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:
** ''VideoGame/ProfessorLaytonVsPhoenixWright'' takes this in a horrifying direction. Instead of regular criminal cases, Phoenix is involved with actual witch trials. Since witches are considered ''incredibly'' dangerous by the people of Labyrinthia, the penalty for being proven as one is [[BurnTheWitch to be lowered into a fiery pit to one's death]]. Even if the defendant wasn't killed upon receiving a Guilty verdict though, Labyrinthia's MedievalStasis world likely wouldn't have a concept of appeals.
to:
** ''VideoGame/ProfessorLaytonVsPhoenixWright'' ''VideoGame/ProfessorLaytonVsAceAttorney'' takes this in a horrifying direction. Instead of regular criminal cases, Phoenix is involved with actual witch trials. Since witches are considered ''incredibly'' dangerous by the people of Labyrinthia, the penalty for being proven as one is [[BurnTheWitch to be lowered into a fiery pit to one's death]]. Even if the defendant wasn't killed upon receiving a Guilty verdict though, Labyrinthia's MedievalStasis world likely wouldn't have a concept of appeals.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** ''VideoGame/ProfessorLaytonVsPhoenixWright'' takes this in a horrifying direction. Instead of regular criminal cases, Phoenix is involved with actual witch trials. Since witches are considered ''incredibly'' dangerous by the people of Labyrinthia, the penalty for being proven as one is [[BurnTheWitch to be lowered into a fiery pit to one's death]]. Even if the defendant wasn't killed upon receiving a Guilty verdict though, Labyrinthia's MedievalStasis world likely wouldn't have a concept of appeals.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
* ''Film/{{Footloose}}''. First Amendment. It's based on a real place that really did have a law against dancing until 1980, so this might fall under RealityIsUnrealistc.
to:
* ''Film/{{Footloose}}''. First Amendment. It's based on a real place that really did have a law against dancing until 1980, so this might fall under RealityIsUnrealistc.RealityIsUnrealistic.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
fixing Ernest\'s name
Changed line(s) 19,20 (click to see context) from:
* ''ErnestGoesToJail''. There is actually mention of a higher court - but it's refused to hear Felix Nash's case, meaning that Ernest Warrel (Who has been switched with Nash in jail) is going to the chair.
to:
* ''ErnestGoesToJail''. There is actually mention of a higher court - but it's refused to hear Felix Nash's case, meaning that Ernest Warrel P. Worrell (Who has been switched with Nash in jail) is going to the chair.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 42 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Judge Snyder has unilaterally banned multiple things from Springfield (such as sugar) and his authority in the matter is never questioned, nor does anyone ever seem to think to just driving their car over to Shelbyville where the judge's far-reaching authority stops.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12,15 (click to see context) from:
* ''Creator/ElviraMistressOfTheDark''. SOMEONE had to be able to tell witch-burning is unconstitutional.
* ''{{Footloose}}''. First Amendment. It's based on a real place that really did have a law against dancing until 1980, so this might fall under RealityIsUnrealistc.
* ''DocHollywood''. Most judges don't judge their own cases.
* Averted in ''InheritTheWind'', which was based on the Scopes Monkey Trial. The appeal isn't shown in the film, but Cates (the Scopes-analogue) and his lawyer discuss making an appeal.
* ''{{Footloose}}''. First Amendment. It's based on a real place that really did have a law against dancing until 1980, so this might fall under RealityIsUnrealistc.
* ''DocHollywood''. Most judges don't judge their own cases.
* Averted in ''InheritTheWind'', which was based on the Scopes Monkey Trial. The appeal isn't shown in the film, but Cates (the Scopes-analogue) and his lawyer discuss making an appeal.
to:
* ''Creator/ElviraMistressOfTheDark''.''Film/ElviraMistressOfTheDark''. SOMEONE had to be able to tell witch-burning is unconstitutional.
*''{{Footloose}}''.''Film/{{Footloose}}''. First Amendment. It's based on a real place that really did have a law against dancing until 1980, so this might fall under RealityIsUnrealistc.
*''DocHollywood''.''Film/DocHollywood''. Most judges don't judge their own cases.
* Averted in''InheritTheWind'', ''Film/InheritTheWind'', which was based on the Scopes Monkey Trial. The appeal isn't shown in the film, but Cates (the Scopes-analogue) and his lawyer discuss making an appeal.
*
*
* Averted in
Changed line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) from:
* ''{{Amistad}}'', based on a true story, averts this with the case being appealed to the Supreme Court and the lawyers have to explain to Cinque why their case has to be argued again after they just won their freedom in court. For his part, Cinque is both outraged and bewildered at this alien legal concept.
* ''{{Pleasantville}}''. The anti-color laws violate First Amendment and the authorities refuse to give the hero a lawyer when he requests one on the grounds that they want things to remain pleasant.
* ''{{Pleasantville}}''. The anti-color laws violate First Amendment and the authorities refuse to give the hero a lawyer when he requests one on the grounds that they want things to remain pleasant.
to:
* ''{{Amistad}}'', ''Film/{{Amistad}}'', based on a true story, averts this with the case being appealed to the Supreme Court and the lawyers have to explain to Cinque why their case has to be argued again after they just won their freedom in court. For his part, Cinque is both outraged and bewildered at this alien legal concept.
*''{{Pleasantville}}''.''Film/{{Pleasantville}}''. The anti-color laws violate First Amendment and the authorities refuse to give the hero a lawyer when he requests one on the grounds that they want things to remain pleasant.
*
Added DiffLines:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
* ''ElviraMistressOfTheDark''. SOMEONE had to be able to tell witch-burning is unconstitutional.
to:
* ''ElviraMistressOfTheDark''.''Creator/ElviraMistressOfTheDark''. SOMEONE had to be able to tell witch-burning is unconstitutional.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
to:
* ''ErnestGoesToJail''. There is actually mention of a higher court - but it's refused to hear Felix Nash's case, meaning that Ernest Warrel (Who has been switched with Nash in jail) is going to the chair.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 35 (click to see context) from:
to:
* PlayedWith in ''LiberalCrimeSquad'': while your Liberals can't ask for review to an higher court, Supreme Court's ruling are one of the ways to influe on the issues.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also averted, somewhat, in ''The Chamber'' (the book, not the movie), when the lawyer Adam ultimately comes up with 4 legal challenges to the death penalty and files them in Mississippi Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. In some cases, the Mississippi Supreme Court is the one that shoots down the challenges, and in others, it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The US Supreme Court consistently denies the opportunity to hear the case.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
to:
** There is ultimately a higher court, but the 3-day-max "hearings" usually end up being the final word: if the defendant is found guilty in the preliminary hearing, then their chances of being acquitted in the trial are essentially non-existent. The trial itself is usually for sentencing, rather than determination of guilt. If your lawyer can't prove you innocent in the hearing, then the evidence is obviously overwhelmingly against you.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29 (click to see context) from:
to:
* ''DoctorWho'': [[AGodAmI "I am The Doctor. If you don't like it, if you want to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It stops with me."]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 31,32 (click to see context) from:
* In ''AceAttorney'', the trials you take part in are essentially ''hearings'', supposedly to determine whether the defendant is guilty ''enough'' for a real trial - a "guilty" verdict just means they get taken off screen and tried for real. They're usually not treated as anything less then "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty". Since the Ace Attorney games are Japanese, and therefore based on the Japanese system rather than American, and [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7530-Phoenix-Wrights-Objection apparently take a lot of actual influence from that system.]]
to:
* In ''AceAttorney'', the trials you take part in are essentially ''hearings'', supposedly to determine whether the defendant is guilty ''enough'' for a real trial - a "guilty" verdict just means they get taken off screen and tried for real. They're usually not treated as anything less then "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty". Since the Ace Attorney games are Japanese, and therefore based on the Japanese system rather than American, and they [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7530-Phoenix-Wrights-Objection apparently take a lot of actual influence from that system.]]
Changed line(s) 34,39 (click to see context) from:
* In ''TheSimpsons'', the mayor at one point discovers that the city of Springfield actually has an old and unenforced law banning the sale of alcohol. Therein, anyone convicted of possessing alcohol in Springfield was to be punished "by catapult"... as in being flung into the next county with one...
** Nothing unconstitutional about banning the sale of alcohol (there are a number of places in the USA that ban it), but the catapult is right out.
*** The power of a state to ban alcohol is one of their explicitly enumerated Constitutional powers. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 21st Amendment, Sec. 2.]]
*** Okay, the example still stands until the Supreme Court rules on the Catapult issue (pending [[TheSimpsons Gumble vs. Quimby]]).
** And of course it turns out that the 200 year old law was repealed 199 years ago anyway. The old man who discovered the law suddenly realized there were more words on the parchment.
** Nothing unconstitutional about banning the sale of alcohol (there are a number of places in the USA that ban it), but the catapult is right out.
*** The power of a state to ban alcohol is one of their explicitly enumerated Constitutional powers. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 21st Amendment, Sec. 2.]]
*** Okay, the example still stands until the Supreme Court rules on the Catapult issue (pending [[TheSimpsons Gumble vs. Quimby]]).
** And of course it turns out that the 200 year old law was repealed 199 years ago anyway. The old man who discovered the law suddenly realized there were more words on the parchment.
to:
* In ''TheSimpsons'', the mayor at one point discovers that the city of Springfield actually has an old and unenforced law banning the sale of alcohol. Therein, anyone convicted of possessing alcohol in Springfield was to be punished "by catapult"... catapult" as in being flung into the next county with one...
** Nothing unconstitutional about banning the sale of alcohol (there are a number of places in the USA that ban it), but the catapult is right out.
*** The power of a state to ban alcohol is one of their explicitly enumerated Constitutional powers. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 21st Amendment, Sec. 2.]]
*** Okay, the example still stands until the Supreme Court rules on the Catapult issue (pending [[TheSimpsons Gumble vs. Quimby]]).
** And of courseone. Then it turns out that the 200 year old law was repealed 199 years ago anyway. The old man who discovered the law suddenly realized there were more words on the parchment.
** Nothing unconstitutional about banning the sale of alcohol (there are a number of places in the USA that ban it), but the catapult is right out.
*** The power of a state to ban alcohol is one of their explicitly enumerated Constitutional powers. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 21st Amendment, Sec. 2.]]
*** Okay, the example still stands until the Supreme Court rules on the Catapult issue (pending [[TheSimpsons Gumble vs. Quimby]]).
** And of course
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 31,38 (click to see context) from:
* In ''AceAttorney'', the trials you take part in are essentially ''hearings'', supposedly to determine whether the defendant is guilty ''enough'' for a real trial - a "guilty" verdict just means they get taken off screen and tried for real. They're never treated as anything less then "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty" however.
** Although in the second game, it's mentioned that [[spoiler: Edgeworth will use his influence to get Acro a reduced sentence. Acro is guilty of premeditated murder]], so apparently it's ''not'' a case of "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty".
** Interestingly, if the guilty party is a witness to the defense's case, they seem to be arrested and incarcerated immediately... until you play ''Trials and Tribulations'', where [[spoiler:Luke Atmey, after being arrested, goes on trial in the next room as your second case (a murder trial) in the chapter starts. In fact, after you call him in and get him for the murder, he appears to actually be imprisoned on the spot with no trial by a higher court.]]
*** Criminals are normally incarcerated pending trial in the US, so this isn't terribly unusual. In some cases it's surprising, though -- [[spoiler: Max Galactica, Will Powers, Miles Edgeworth and Wocky Kitaki]] should all be able to afford bail easily, yet all of them remain in the detention center until the trial.
*** Judges rarely set bail for murder trials.
**** Meaning they also all have the resources to flee; since they're being held for murder, which is a death penalty crime in the Phoenix Wright universe, it's not beyond belief that they'd be held without bond.
**** The Ace Attorney games are Japanese, and therefore based on the Japanese system rather than American, and [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7530-Phoenix-Wrights-Objection apparently take a lot of actual influence from that system.]]
** Although in the second game, it's mentioned that [[spoiler: Edgeworth will use his influence to get Acro a reduced sentence. Acro is guilty of premeditated murder]], so apparently it's ''not'' a case of "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty".
** Interestingly, if the guilty party is a witness to the defense's case, they seem to be arrested and incarcerated immediately... until you play ''Trials and Tribulations'', where [[spoiler:Luke Atmey, after being arrested, goes on trial in the next room as your second case (a murder trial) in the chapter starts. In fact, after you call him in and get him for the murder, he appears to actually be imprisoned on the spot with no trial by a higher court.]]
*** Criminals are normally incarcerated pending trial in the US, so this isn't terribly unusual. In some cases it's surprising, though -- [[spoiler: Max Galactica, Will Powers, Miles Edgeworth and Wocky Kitaki]] should all be able to afford bail easily, yet all of them remain in the detention center until the trial.
*** Judges rarely set bail for murder trials.
**** Meaning they also all have the resources to flee; since they're being held for murder, which is a death penalty crime in the Phoenix Wright universe, it's not beyond belief that they'd be held without bond.
**** The Ace Attorney games are Japanese, and therefore based on the Japanese system rather than American, and [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7530-Phoenix-Wrights-Objection apparently take a lot of actual influence from that system.]]
to:
* In ''AceAttorney'', the trials you take part in are essentially ''hearings'', supposedly to determine whether the defendant is guilty ''enough'' for a real trial - a "guilty" verdict just means they get taken off screen and tried for real. They're never usually not treated as anything less then "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty" however.
** Although inPenalty". Since the second game, it's mentioned that [[spoiler: Edgeworth will use his influence to get Acro a reduced sentence. Acro is guilty of premeditated murder]], so apparently it's ''not'' a case of "Get Off Scott Free vs. Death Penalty".
** Interestingly, if the guilty party is a witness to the defense's case, they seem to be arrested and incarcerated immediately... until you play ''Trials and Tribulations'', where [[spoiler:Luke Atmey, after being arrested, goes on trial in the next room as your second case (a murder trial) in the chapter starts. In fact, after you call him in and get him for the murder, he appears to actually be imprisoned on the spot with no trial by a higher court.]]
*** Criminals are normally incarcerated pending trial in the US, so this isn't terribly unusual. In some cases it's surprising, though -- [[spoiler: Max Galactica, Will Powers, Miles Edgeworth and Wocky Kitaki]] should all be able to afford bail easily, yet all of them remain in the detention center until the trial.
*** Judges rarely set bail for murder trials.
**** Meaning they also all have the resources to flee; since they're being held for murder, which is a death penalty crime in the Phoenix Wright universe, it's not beyond belief that they'd be held without bond.
**** TheAce Attorney games are Japanese, and therefore based on the Japanese system rather than American, and [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_253/7530-Phoenix-Wrights-Objection apparently take a lot of actual influence from that system.]]
** Although in
** Interestingly, if the guilty party is a witness to the defense's case, they seem to be arrested and incarcerated immediately... until you play ''Trials and Tribulations'', where [[spoiler:Luke Atmey, after being arrested, goes on trial in the next room as your second case (a murder trial) in the chapter starts. In fact, after you call him in and get him for the murder, he appears to actually be imprisoned on the spot with no trial by a higher court.]]
*** Criminals are normally incarcerated pending trial in the US, so this isn't terribly unusual. In some cases it's surprising, though -- [[spoiler: Max Galactica, Will Powers, Miles Edgeworth and Wocky Kitaki]] should all be able to afford bail easily, yet all of them remain in the detention center until the trial.
*** Judges rarely set bail for murder trials.
**** Meaning they also all have the resources to flee; since they're being held for murder, which is a death penalty crime in the Phoenix Wright universe, it's not beyond belief that they'd be held without bond.
**** The
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11,12 (click to see context) from:
* ''{{Footloose}}''. First Amendment.
** Although it's based on a real place that really did have a law against dancing until 1980. [[TruthInTelevision So...yeah.]]
** Although it's based on a real place that really did have a law against dancing until 1980. [[TruthInTelevision So...yeah.]]
to:
* ''{{Footloose}}''. First Amendment.
** Although it'sAmendment. It's based on a real place that really did have a law against dancing until 1980. [[TruthInTelevision So...yeah.]]1980, so this might fall under RealityIsUnrealistc.
** Although it's
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Deleted line(s) 16,17 (click to see context) :
* In ''SinCity'', it's obvious that the Rourke family owns the city so they use the courts to their advantage. One could even assume that they also control the courts in the [[WhereTheHellIsSpringfield unknown state]] the city resides in since one of the brothers is a senator. There's really nothing to explain why the more justice-minded characters wouldn't go to a federal court, though.
** You can't go to a federal court unless a federal law has been broken. Most of the time this is done by claiming someone's civil rights have been violated. But unless you can get that to work, you can't. Also, being a senator can help with that as well.
** You can't go to a federal court unless a federal law has been broken. Most of the time this is done by claiming someone's civil rights have been violated. But unless you can get that to work, you can't. Also, being a senator can help with that as well.
