# Most Egregious Legal Errors in Court Shows **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 23, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171 "2010-01-23T23:37:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/21 "2010-01-26T07:59:18Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Interesting fact: in the 1999 movie Double Jeopardy, starring Tommie Lee Jones and Ashley Judd, we find out that if you are convicted of murdering your husband, but in fact your husband had faked his death and arranged to have you convicted of his murder, then when you get out of jail you can find your still-alive husband and shoot him without legal repercussions since bringing you to trial for the shooting would violate the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution. But the rules are DIFFERENT for attractive people! They’re special! ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/22 "2010-01-26T09:27:41Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > The only time I’ve ever been on a jury, something similar has happened and I was surprised because I remember having been told it would never happen in a “real” case. It was either the quick “Objection - withdrawn” or the “Objection - sustained” or “Objection - overruled” trope. At any rate I was expecting more explanation of the objection that did not occur. (Then again there were far fewer of these, and objections at all, than in courtroom dramas, but also, slightly more than I had expected.) Yes, [Disregard that statement !](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisregardThatStatement) does happen IRL, however it’s well known sleazy trick, and lawyers employ it at their own risk. A lawyer trying it too often in a given trial will find his ass in contempt faster than he can say “withdrawn”, and a lawyer who does it on a regular basis will promptly get disbarred. It really is the nuclear option, even when they do it much, much more subtly than shown on TV. ---
**Author:** ![LiveOnAPlane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@LiveOnAPlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LiveOnAPlane)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/23 "2010-01-26T13:20:43Z")
IANAL, but my niece is, and I recall her telling me once that in a large number of court scenes, we see the attorneys walking about in some area (can’t remember exactly where or what she called it) in front of the judge, very casually. She said that you had to have permission from the judge to do that and if you didn’t he or she would promptly rip you a new one. I don’t think it was the area right in front of the judge (where they ask “permission to approach the bench”), but a much broader area of the courtroom. She said it happens all the time in the dramas and it’s something that a lay person would not be likely to notice. Dang, wish I could remember her exact description, but maybe some of the attorneys here know what I’m trying to describe. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/24 "2010-01-26T13:26:15Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > They aren’t “errors”, since TV shows and movies are made to entertain and not to be accurate representations of reality. The writers, directors, producers, and actors all know that. _Hopefully_ the audience also knows that. Everything that happens on a TV show is quite intentional and therefore not an “error”. > > What you’re trying to say is where do court shows differ from reality most dramatically? As a non-lawyer, I just find it interesting to hear from experts what is legit and what is not. I have no way of knowing otherwise. It doesn’t necessarily detract from my enjoyment to know what the faults are, it’s merely interesting! ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/25 "2010-01-26T13:58:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > How about judges doing magic tricks? > ref: _Night Court_ Actually, I think I remember once reading that Night Court was probably one of the more realistic court shows out there, both in its depiction of the legal proceedings and the types of cases that a court like that would handle, if not so much in its portrayal of the wacky people who worked there. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/26 "2010-01-26T14:23:56Z")
Perry Mason never heard of discovery rules, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/27 "2010-01-26T15:22:24Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Interesting fact: in the 1999 movie Double Jeopardy, starring Tommie Lee Jones and Ashley Judd, we find out that if you are convicted of murdering your husband, but in fact your husband had faked his death and arranged to have you convicted of his murder, then when you get out of jail you can find your still-alive husband and shoot him without legal repercussions since bringing you to trial for the shooting would violate the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution. I haven’t seen the movie in years, but I’m pretty sure it’s isn’t a judge or lawyer who tells Ashley Judd that double jeopardy will protect her. It’s one of her fellow convicts! So, while Ashley is operating on a bogus assumption the whole movie, it’s NOT a bogus assumption presented by a character who’s supposed to be a legal expert. Convicts “know” all kinds of legal “facts” that aren’t true! That’s one reason a lot of them are convicted in the first place! Many dope dealers “know” that an undercover cop HAS to answer truthfully if asked “Are you a cop?” Not true, but many a crook “knows” it. So, taking legal advice from a convict is, er, um… unwise. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/28 "2010-01-26T15:33:50Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > The movie “A Civil Action” portrayed a lawyer and federal judge as being largely ignorant of a federal rule of civil procedure that a first year law student would know. Not entirely unfair, actually. It’s been a few years since I read the book (never saw the movie) - but if memory serves, Schlichtmann did make some pretty basic procedural errors, particularly with regard to venue, and his clients suffered for it. Schlichtmann also was rather lax about bringing _every_ settlement offer to his clients - that’s a big ethical no-no. Even if you think a settlement offer is insultingly small, that’s you’re client’s call, not yours. You can _advise_ the clients not to take the deal, but you can’t refuse to tell them about it. Most disturbingly, Schlichtmann let an author shadow him throughout the entire case, including staff meetings and meetings with clients. There’s an excellent argument to be made that he utterly destroyed the protection of the attorney-client privilege by doing so. The book portrays Schlichtmann as a decent guy who was genuinely horrified by what his clietns had gone through - but it also makes pretty clear that he wasn’t nearly as smart as he thought he was. ---
**Author:** ![crazyjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@crazyjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crazyjoe)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/29 "2010-01-26T15:34:25Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > I haven’t seen the movie in years, but I’m pretty sure it’s isn’t a judge or lawyer who tells Ashley Judd that double jeopardy will protect her. It’s one of her fellow convicts! > > So, while Ashley is operating on a bogus assumption the whole movie, it’s NOT a bogus assumption presented by a character who’s supposed to be a legal expert. > > Convicts “know” all kinds of legal “facts” that aren’t true! That’s one reason a lot of them are convicted in the first place! Many dope dealers “know” that an undercover cop HAS to answer truthfully if asked “Are you a cop?” Not true, but many a crook “knows” it. > > So, taking legal advice from a convict is, er, um… unwise. Yeah, this has always bugged me as a comlpaint about the movie. Both Ashley and TL Jones use this “Double Jeopardy” rule as a bluff to knock the ex-husband off his game. I don’t think AJ or TLJ actually expect to kill the dude, just get him to confess on tape to what he did so they can free AJ and reunite her with her kid. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/30 "2010-01-26T15:41:08Z")
“Your Honor, if you’ll just give me some leeway, the point of my seemingly irrelevant question will become clear.” “I’ll allow it.” ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/31 "2010-01-26T15:44:56Z")
Not a show, but the movie _ **The Verdict** _ is like the anti-textbook in real life court proceedings. I am not a lawyer, and I saw it in 11th grade, but even then I was aware how different it was from real life. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/32 "2010-01-26T16:35:49Z")
There’s the common scene where the lawyers argue a point in front of the judge’s bench. In my experience as a juror in reality, for anything that takes more than ten seconds the judge and lawyers step out of the courtroom. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/33 "2010-01-26T17:30:39Z")
> [@crazyjoe](#): > > =Both Ashley and TL Jones use this “Double Jeopardy” rule as a bluff to knock the ex-husband off his game. I would have to watch the move a second time to be sure, but this is what I recall: The convict that tells this to Ashley Judd was supposed to be a former lawyer; Ashley Judd sincerely believes she will be able to get away with this Double Jeopardy defense; Tommy Lee Jones (the parole officer) never tells her that this is untrue, and acts as if it were true. A simple two-minute aside where you see two people in conversation (e.g. the parole officer and someone else) explaining that the theory is a bunch of hooey would have been useful to convince me that the screenwriters actually knew this. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/34 "2010-01-26T17:33:17Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > The only time I’ve ever been on a jury, something similar has happened and I was surprised because I remember having been told it would never happen in a “real” case. It was either the quick “Objection - withdrawn” or the “Objection - sustained” or “Objection - overruled” trope. At any rate I was expecting more explanation of the objection that did not occur. That was my experience as well, but almost every overruled objection was followed with “The jury will disregard that statement.” That happened a lot. I was under the impression that opening and closing arguments were not nearly as dramatic as they were on TV. Wow, was I ever wrong. The defense attorney approached the jury box for his opening argument, raised his hands in an overly dramatic fashion, and loudly said “TRUTH!” In the deliberation room we all said that we had trouble not laughing out loud at that. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/35 "2010-01-26T20:22:53Z")
By the way - in terms of getting legal matters _right_, “My Cousin Vinnie” would be the canonical example. There are errors, of course, and some are quite glaring. Vinnie’s “cogent, well-argued” objection should never have been over-ruled. That was almost certainly reversible error. However, even this glitch gets at a larger truth - the fact that cogent, well-reasoned arguments _can_ still fail before reasonable, honest judges who just aren’t persuaded by them. However, the plot is driven by Vinnie’s procedural ineptitude (and efforts to overcome same), and the movie pays real attention to being as accurate as the plot will allow. Clips are frequently shown in law school classrooms, and most profs I’ve met are fans of the film. It’s also inspired a number of law review articles. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/36 "2010-01-27T04:32:11Z")
> [@LiveOnAPlane](#): > > IANAL, but my niece is, and I recall her telling me once that in a large number of court scenes, we see the attorneys walking about in some area (can’t remember exactly where or what she called it) in front of the judge, very casually. She said that you had to have permission from the judge to do that and if you didn’t he or she would promptly rip you a new one. > > I don’t think it was the area right in front of the judge (where they ask “permission to approach the bench”), but a much broader area of the courtroom. > > She said it happens all the time in the dramas and it’s something that a lay person would not be likely to notice. Dang, wish I could remember her exact description, but maybe some of the attorneys here know what I’m trying to describe. The area she’s talking about is called “the well.” Whether or not attorneys are allowed in without asking for permission each time really varies with jurisdiction and courtroom. I’m a public defender and in my normal courtroom, during arraignments, I regularly walk in every area of the courtroom without asking permission each time. It’s very informal. Even during jury trial, other than asking to approach a witness, I’ll walk all over the place without asking permission. For us (myself and my colleagues), it’s a tactical decision during trial. We’re showing the jury it’s _our_ courtroom. Everything you see us do during a trial is for jury appeal, right down to the color of the suit and how we interact with our clients at counsel table. Same thing with the objection: withdrawn thing. I’ve done it in trial and so have the D.As I’ve been against. Sometimes we just realize we’ve asked a question in an objectionable way after we’ve asked it and immediately ask it in the proper evidentiary form. Other times, we really want to get a fact out in front of the jury that would be irrelevant from an evidentiary viewpoint, but would still be important in deciding guilt or innocence. Unless there’s been a pre-trial ruling disallowing it, it’s allowed. The jury will be instructed to not consider it if the objection is sustained or the question withdrawn, but the jury already has heard it, and they are only human, after all. As a professional courtesy, however, we tend to keep such strategies to a minimum. Reputation is everything in the community I practice in, and it’s really not worth tarnishing one’s reputation to engage in such a behavior regularly. No one would employ such a tactic just to make some snide remark to a witness, like you see in a lot of shows. That would just be stupid since the only that would end up looking like an ass will be the attorney asking the “question.” ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/37 "2010-01-27T17:53:12Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > Her biggest complaint was the old SURPRISE WITNESS trick which seemed to happen a lot. Ah yes, surprise witnesses. IANAL, but wouldn’t that be hiding evidence from the other side? I expect that if the prosecution did it (as happens on _Law & Order_ occasionally) then it would be trivially easy for the defense to get the verdict thrown out on appeal. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/38 "2010-01-27T18:38:59Z")
I remember in _Kramer vs. Kramer_, Meryl Streep’s character instructs her lawyer not to use the incident of her son’s accident within the questioning, but he does so anyway, contrary to her wishes. I thought I read somewhere that no lawyer could ethically do that–that he had to abide by her instructions, even if he thought to not do so would be better for her case. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/39 "2010-01-27T19:13:33Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > By the way - in terms of getting legal matters _right_, “My Cousin Vinnie” would be the canonical example. There are errors, of course, and some are quite glaring. > > Vinnie’s “cogent, well-argued” objection should never have been over-ruled. That was almost certainly reversible error. However, even this glitch gets at a larger truth - the fact that cogent, well-reasoned arguments _can_ still fail before reasonable, honest judges who just aren’t persuaded by them. > > However, the plot is driven by Vinnie’s procedural ineptitude (and efforts to overcome same), and the movie pays real attention to being as accurate as the plot will allow. Clips are frequently shown in law school classrooms, and most profs I’ve met are fans of the film. It’s also inspired a number of law review articles. The attention to legal detail in My Cousin Vinny is truly awesome. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171/40 "2010-01-27T19:25:20Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > By the way - in terms of getting legal matters _right_, “My Cousin Vinnie” would be the canonical example. There are errors, of course, and some are quite glaring. > > Vinnie’s “cogent, well-argued” objection should never have been over-ruled. That was almost certainly reversible error. However, even this glitch gets at a larger truth - the fact that cogent, well-reasoned arguments _can_ still fail before reasonable, honest judges who just aren’t persuaded by them. > > However, the plot is driven by Vinnie’s procedural ineptitude (and efforts to overcome same), and the movie pays real attention to being as accurate as the plot will allow. Clips are frequently shown in law school classrooms, and most profs I’ve met are fans of the film. It’s also inspired a number of law review articles. I saw it last night. I will say that although the movie is tongue in cheek, I really was stunned at how good the cross that Vinnie did was, it was the way it should be, put his clients case and impeached the witnesses testimony and exhibited a superb amount of control. Rather a return to form with the prosecutors exam in chief (direct in the US). Was blatantly leading. So, my fellow doper lawyers, has there ever been a movie or show, in which chief/direct has been done properly? Never seen one myself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-egregious-legal-errors-in-court-shows/526171.md?page=3)