I think that in most cases those are most certainly errors because somebody (probably a writer, but maybe someone else) was too lazy to research what really happens. Now, I’ll grant you that sometimes an incorrect portrayal is intentional and done for the purpose of good theater. In most cases, though, portraying something accurately wouldn’t make much difference…except in the amount of time someone has to research the procedures, or facts, or whatever.
IIRC, when I’ve seen “surprise witness” done recently, it’s from a long list of potential witnesses that the other side just didn’t think would be tapped. I don’t know if that makes it more realistic or not.
I can’t remember “My Cousin Vinnie” very well. Didn’t victory come from his knowledge of cars, rather than his knowledge of the laws? I seem to remember he had to get his girlfriend admitted as an expert witness too, when he had access to an expert witness already who could have answered the same questions.
Perry had probably heard of them…but decided to ignore them. Perry ignored a LOT of rules and laws that were inconvenient for him.
I enjoyed the old Perry Mason TV shows and books, but even as a young teen, I knew that Perry was pretty unethical when it came to following procedure and law, though he did do his best to get justice for his clients.
I present pretty much every legal argument presented by Crane, Poole and Schmidt. It does not stop me from loving Denny and Alan though.
Trust me, this one wasn’t just a portrayal of “shakiness on the rules,” it was a major depature from the book into the realm of the legally ridiculous. The defense attorney files for a Rule 11 hearing, and Schlictman tells the judge at the hearing he’d never heard of Rule 11 and “had to look it up.” The judge confesses he had to look it up as well, because it’s “so old and ambiguous few lawyers waste their time with it, or mine” and denies the motion on that ground. The idea that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 is an old, ambiguous fossil that few lawyers or federal judges have heard of or waste their time with is jaw droppingly ludicrous.
That may be another difference between movies and reality. When I saw that being done in movies, I imagined that I’d be all “screw you, judge, I heard what I heard.” But when I did jury duty a couple of months ago, I was surprised at how willing I was to forget what the judge told us to forget.
In fact, one of those things came up in deliberations. Someone brought something up, and the rest of us reminded him that we weren’t to consider it. And yes, it affected our verdict.
I can get over most of the basic procedural and setting errors. Not that leading questions during direct shouldn’t be bothersome (to each his own), but I put it in something like the sound in space category.
My arbitrary head-explosion line gets crossed when shows take a decidedly Neanderthal view of Constitutional protections – when shows violate rights that *should *be fundamental aspects of junior high school civics classes. Search warrants based on hunches, browbeating questioning of minors without their parents or an attorney, that sort of thing. Much of this takes place during the cop-half of shows, but it’s an integral part of the court side.
Don’t 90% of those boil down to “Bush is teh sux0rz!!!”?
It’s not a show, but the Phoenix Wright games, holy crap, that is some messed up court stuff there. Prosecutors calling the defendant to the stand to testify is among the least of the issues.
Aren’t those Japanese games, though? I’ve no idea if the Japanese legal system provides a protection against self-incrimination.
“We’re not going to BREAK the law,” Perry was fond of saying (in the books at least). “We’re just going to BEND it a little.”
Rrrrright.
Double Jeopardy was a stupid movie, but I am pretty sure one of the characters does tell Ashley Judd’s character late in the film that double jeopardy would not apply to her situation. Or maybe I’m misremembering it because I was thinking about the inaccuracy from the moment the movie came out of the box.
Depends. You can call a witness to impeach the other side’s witness without disclosing that witness to the other side. Reason being, until you heard the testimony you intend to impeach on direct, you had no reason to call your witness. If you don’t reasonably intend to call your witness, you don’t need to disclose. The other side is entitled to a hearing regarding the “suprise witness” testimony, though. I’ve also done this at trial and my witness (a cop, actually) was allowed to testify after a brief explanation at sidebar.
Disclaimer: criminal trials can be a lot different from civil trials with respect to the rules, because things tend to happen so quickly. It’s more of a “fly by the seat of your pants” kind of law. We have a saying in criminal law: “civil attorneys spend their days preparing for trial and never actually going. Criminal attorneys spend their days in trial, never actually preparing.”
I don’t know where the original versions were set, but I don’t believe the localized versions are set in Japan, so the nit still deserves picking!