Almost every episode of Perry Mason ever made. In one of the TV movies (late 80s-early 90s), a middle-aged woman's alibi involved changing a flat tire. Mason has a worker demonstrate how lugnuts are tightened at the shop using an air wrench, and invites her to show the court how she was able to remove them without power tools. She couldn't. (This was itself a use of Conviction by Counterfactual Clue; if it really was impossible to remove lugnuts that had been tightened with an air wrench, no one would be able to change a tire except a mechanic with an air wrench.
is this correct? the way this reads, Perry Mason didn't prove it was impossible to remove lugnuts w/o power tools, he proved it was impossible for the witness in question to. That would be sufficient to discredit the alibi, so wouldn't be Conviction By Counterfactual Clue.
Ace Attorney: The biggest issue with this trope for Pheonix ultimately is that his job as a defense attorney suffers a bit of a misnomer: his role is to defend the accused not by demonstrating that the evidence doesn't sufficiently implicate his client, but that the evidence implicates someone else entirely (and therefore not his client). Meanwhile, the prosecutors simply have to show that the evidence trivially implicates the main suspect. It doesn't matter what crazy or unlikely argument they make, if Pheonix cannot prove said argument is false the court is going to run with it.