History Main / HollywoodLaw

* ''Mind Scan'' by Creator/RobertJSawyer has two examples. The probate case in the book is tried by a jury, something judges alone rule on. It's also mentioned that the case which led to ''Roe vs. Wade'' being overturned, in which a man sued to get his girlfriend enjoined from having an abortion, was also decided by a jury. This would be done by a judge on their own, as it's a matter of law, not fact.

* In ''ComicBook/{{Manhunter}}'', Kate Spencer's prosecution of Shadow Thief for the murder of Ron Raymond, aka ComicBook/{{Firestorm|DCComics}}, is ludicrous. It's hard to know where to begin, but consider the fact that Spencer calls a bunch of superheroes to testify without giving their real names without first showing that they or their families would have been in danger. Under ''United States v. Ramos-Cruz'', _ F.3d _ (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2012); ''United States v. Zelaya'', 336 F. App'x 355 (4th Cir. 2009); and ''United States v. Gutierrez de Lopez'', a witness may testify anonymously only if the prosecution can show that the witnesses or their families would be in danger otherwise (but see the note below), although the issue would be whether an anonymous witness violates either the confrontation clause or due process, and a statute cannot override a constitutional provision. Secondly, most of the witnesses weren't even legitimate witnesses in the first place: they didn't actually see the crime committed, and she just asked them questions about what a hero Firestorm was, and what a great guy he was. None of that would be relevant at trial, although some of it might be allowed at a sentencing hearing, if Shadow Thief were convicted. The bizarre part is that there were other superheroes who were present at the crime and saw it happen, at least one of whom, ComicBook/{{Vixen}}, has a public identity and could have been called as a witness; needless to say, she wasn't.[[note]]In fact, though, trial law in the DCU has been modified to allow superheroes to testify without revealing their identities; this was established in 1985's ''Tales of the Teen Titans #53'' by Marv Wolfman and Rich Buckler, if not earlier. The other points absolutely stand, though.[[/note]]
* In one issue of ''ComicBook/{{Daredevil}}'', a judge appointed under ComicBook/NormanOsborn overruled a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal trial and sent the innocent defendants to prison, ignoring 1000 years of legal precedent and the US constitution. To be fair, the Franchise/MarvelUniverse during ''ComicBook/DarkReign'' seemed to be a fascist dictatorship under Osborn, so the law probably changed to allow this verdict (which is otherwise ''completely'' illegal and unconstitutional in our world). Osborn getting that job he had in the first place, long after being exposed and jailed for being a superhuman homicidal maniac, whose standard M.O. was flying around a city throwing bombs and who once planned to murder ''all life on Earth'', is however a pretty straight example. You become ineligible for most and/or all political offices, especially at higher levels, if you've committed a felony, and Osborn was never pardoned. Oddly enough, you do ''not'' become ineligible for the US Presidency. Numerous felons (mostly political activists like Eugene Debs or Leonard Peltier) have run for President while in prison for a felony conviction (Peltier is even serving two life sentences for murder, but if elected [[LoopholeAbuse he could]] pardon ''himself'', so no worries there).
* ''ComicBook/GreenArrow'':
** #32 features jury nullification with a slight difference: they find him not guilty, but the Judge still rules that he is exiled from the city for life, giving him 24 hours to leave and stating that he will be imprisoned if he returns.
** In addition to that rather dubious ruling, the judge openly states that he could have Ollie thrown in jail anyway, despite the jury acquittal. This is utterly impossible under US law (while you can still end up being found guilty and sentenced for the separate crime of "contempt of court" -- if you actually committed some -- while being acquitted on the original charge, you cannot be sentenced ''for the original charge'' while simultaneously being acquitted of the original charge!) and going on the record with it would probably earn a judge official reprimands at the very least.
** The trial isn't even in the correct venue. Exactly what jurisdiction does a California state court (Star City is in California) have over an alleged murder committed in ''another dimension'', especially when the victim is of unknown nationality? (Prometheus' secret ID has never been cracked.) Even if jurisdiction is being asserted on the grounds of 'well, Oliver Queen is a US citizen and nobody else has any jurisdiction over this entire mess as it happened in territory claimed by no sovereign nation', that should still have landed him in US District Court.
** The crowner of this entire mess is that ''the trial should not be happening at all''. Prometheus died during the course of a lawful arrest by a deputized peacekeeping agent, while on his feet, armed, and facing his killer. How does this qualify as murder? Sure, Oliver Queen went there with the intent of killing Prometheus even if he ''didn't'' resist arrest, but you can't be placed on trial for what you ''would'' have done, only what you actually ''did'' do. And since Prometheus wasn't surrendering and was a highly dangerous felon who has already killed entire squads of cops who've tried to arrest him before, shooting him the instant he makes a sudden move is justifiable homicide. Sure, Ollie's confession as to his intent should have gotten him dismissed from the JLA for going way outside of policy, if not asked to go see a psychiatrist, but it doesn't sustain a charge of murder one. If Ollie had sniped Promethus unawares, then yeah, that's murder -- except he didn't.
*** While it is true that there was only one living witness to the confrontation -- Ollie himself -- given that the arrow hole is in the front and Prometheus was clearly standing when he died and wearing his full battle harness, forensic evidence would entirely support the justifiable homicide interpretation. And while it's possible Ollie confessed to killing the guy cold (even if he didn't) out of some guilt complex, even then the scene would ''still'' contain a plot hole... specifically, that if Ollie had pled guilty then ''there shouldn't have been a jury trial in the first place''.
*** A confession is not the same as a guilty plea, though, so if he'd confessed but didn't then plead guilty to a murder charge there would have to be a trial.
* In ''ComicBook/XMen'', Josh Foley, aka [[HealingHands Elixir]], is told by Danielle Moonstar that his parents have signed total legal guardianship over to her, without Josh ever having been notified or called before a judge or any indication that either party set foot in a court of law. He's 16 at the time, so how did such important legal proceedings take place without him even knowing about them?
* Marvel writers have repeatedly had a character charged with "treason" over acts which have nothing to do with the deliberately narrow definition of treason expressly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (levying war against the United States or, in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort). It does not mean "acting against a government agency" or "insubordination". It's also ''really'' hard to convict someone of it--treason is the only crime specifically defined in the US Constitution (to prevent abusive prosecutions under looser definitions as went on under the British Crown) requiring two or more witnesses testifying to the same act, or a confession in open court, which is the only crime in US federal or state law with this high a standard to obtain a conviction. Thus, people who have committed treason are generally just charged with other, easier-to-prove offenses.
* A [[ComicBook/ThePunisher Punisher]] story made hash of the InsanityDefense by having a judge not remand the Punisher for psychiatric examination, but simply decreeing that he was "insane" on the basis of counsel's rhetoric (and over his vehement objection).
* It's a major plot point of {{Creator/Greg Rucka}}'s ''ComicBook/GothamCentral'' that any case coming from the Internal Affairs Division of the Gotham PD against corrupt Crime Scene Unit technician Jimmy Corrigan would be tainted because Major Crimes Unit Det. Renee Montoya beat certain key information out of Corrigan[[note]]Corrigan had sold one of the bullets from the crime scene to a collector[[/note]] in a fight outside a bar in order to clear her partner, Crispus Allen, in a shooting after being tacitly encouraged to do so by a detective from IAD. Supposedly this means that neither IAD nor MCU can ever touch Corrigan legally. Shockingly, losing a bar brawl to an off-duty cop does not actually give you legal immunity to anything. It is true that none of the information that Montoya beat out of Corrigan would be admissible, but any evidence gathered independently of that would be perfectly admissible. At worst, if Montoya herself were a key witness against Corrigan, his attorney could try to use the fight to call her credibility into question. Of course, it would be very risky for Corrigan's attorney to bring up the fight at all, because it might open the door for the prosecutor to ask what the fight was about, which would probably hurt Corrigan more than the prosecution.
* This was very common in Dan Slott's run on ''ComicBook/SheHulk'', which is hardly surprising since it was a legal comedy written by a non-lawyer. Many of these were justified by RuleOfFunny:
** The most obvious is that the law firm Jennifer works for, Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg, and Holliway, has, in their law library, at least for their super-human law division, nothing but boxes and boxes of Marvel comics. It is explained that, within the Marvel Universe, Marvel comics are all true, and are licensed by the superheroes who star in them, and, prior to 2002, were certified by MediaNotes/TheComicsCode Authority, a government agency, and are therefore admissible in any courtroom in the United States. It's hard to know where to start with this one. First of all, the Comics Code Authority was never a government agency; it has always been a private ratings agency created by the comics industry itself. Secondly, even if it were a government agency, merely having a document certified by a government agency does not make it admissible, any more than does being licensed by the persons who star in the comics. Thirdly, and most importantly, even if there were no questions about the admissibility of Marvel comics into evidence, the comics are not a source of ''law''; they may be a source of ''facts'', but not law. A mere record of facts is only admissible if the facts are directly relevant to the case at hand. Also, facts recorded in a comic book would almost always be inadmissible as hearsay. The lawyers would have to provide some other source for the same facts to get them into evidence. This one, of course, is justified by RuleOfFunny and as a source of [[ContinuityNod Continuity Nods]].
** Then there's Jennifer's first case: Dan Jermain wants to sue the Roxxon corporation, for which he worked as a safety inspector, because he got knocked into a vat of radioactive material, transforming him into the larger, stronger, more powerful Danger Man, wrecking his life in the process. The problem is that, because it was a workplace accident, Jermain can only get workman's compensation; he is barred by statute from suing Roxxon in tort! Also, he can only recover his medical bills and lost wages for a limited time from workman's comp. Plus, as an example of the absurdity of using Marvel comics as a source of law, Jennifer's strategy for winning the case is based on the return of Jean Grey story arc, in which it was revealed that Jean was never the Phoenix, but rather that the Phoenix took her place; based on that, Jennifer decides to argue that Dan Jermain died in the accident and that Danger Man is a totally new entity. That might be true, but the Phoenix/Jean Grey story has nothing to do with it. Jennifer would have to actually ''prove'', with evidence from the case, that Dan Jermain is dead, which is going to be hard since it's obviously not true: Danger Man obviously is Dan Jermain.
** Then, in a subsequent case, Jennifer and fellow associate Augustus Pugliese sue J. Jonah Jameson for libel on behalf of Spider-Man. They are winning the case when Pugliese decides he wants to add Peter Parker as a defendant[[note]]It came out during the trial that Peter Parker had deliberately falsified certain photos of Spidey that he sold to Jameson.[[/note]], which, shockingly enough, prompts Spider-Man to insist on settling the lawsuit. This is absurd on multiple levels. First, the plaintiff can't add a defendant when the trial is already underway. Second, the plaintiff's lawyer can't add a defendant without his client's permission. Third, no one is going to bother suing Peter Parker, for the simple reason that he's judgment-proof; that is, he doesn't have enough money to pay any judgment you might get against him. Again, this one was pretty much just RuleOfFunny.
** When another of Jennifer's associates, Mallory Book, defends Samuel Sterns, the Leader, on criminal charges, the trial is in New York, even though many of the crimes Sterns is charged with, including nuking a town in Arizona, happened in other states. Under Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution, ''and'' under the Sixth Amendment thereto, the trial of all federal crimes must be in the state and district in which the crimes were committed, meaning the government can only try the Leader in Arizona for crimes committed in Arizona. Plus, Book's defense of Sterns is that, as a gamma-altered individual, he is of diminished capacity. That would be fine, if and only if gamma alteration meant that Sterns either did not know right from wrong, or that he was under an irresistible impulse to commit his crimes. The problem is that two of Book's key witnesses, Jennifer Walters and Dr. Leonard Samson, are also gamma-altered, and both are moral, law-abiding citizens; Walters, obviously, is a lawyer and superhero, and Samson is a psychiatrist (and also occasional superhero). That doesn't mean Sterns isn't insane, but Book certainly hasn't proved it. Plus which, even if Book had succeeded, that would just mean that the Leader would just end up in an asylum for the criminally insane instead of in prison; the story was published in 2007, the same year New York abolished the death penalty.
** Around the same time Book was defending the Leader, Jennifer was suing Tony Stark for injecting her with power-inhibiting nanites that made it impossible for her to transform into She-Hulk. The problem is that, while she could theoretically sue for tortious battery, Stark would have an unbeatable self-defense defense: Jennifer, in her She-Hulk form, was beating him up at the time he injected her. At the very least, Stark would almost certainly have qualified immunity, since he was acting in his capacity as director of S.H.I.E.L.D. at the time. Stark would almost certainly win on dismissal or summary judgment, but the comic presents Jennifer as having a real chance of winning a big judgment.
** The more recent She-Hulk series, written by Charles Soule, is generally more accurate, since Soule is a lawyer, but not always. For example, in issue 9, She-Hulk defends Captain America against a wrongful death action based on alleged negligence by Steve Rogers in 1940, before he became Captain America. The problem is that [[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=335-349.4 section 335.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure]] establishes a two-year statute of limitations on actions for wrongful death in negligence, as in this case. The other problem is that even if the plaintiffs could still bring the suit, they would have to do so under the law as it was in 1940, and back then, California, like most states, still had a contributory negligence standard, not a comparative fault standard. In this case, the decedent's brother admitted that he was also partially responsible; since contributory negligence is a complete defense, it means that Rogers cannot be held liable at all.
*** To make matters worse, the brother's story, which seems to be pretty much the entirety of the plaintiff's case, is not testified to by the brother himself, because he's dead. Rather, a police officer who was with the brother when he died testified as to the brother's dying declaration, which he revealed what had happened back in 1940. The comic claims that this is acceptable because dying declarations are an exception to the hearsay rule. That is true, if and only if the dying declaration concerns the circumstances of the death. If a dying man says that so-and-so is the one who killed him, that is admissible under the dying declaration exception. If a dying man says that seventy-four years ago, his brother died partly through the negligence of Steve Rogers, that is not admissible.

* ''{{ComicBook/Watchmen}}'': Rorschach was sent to Sing Sing before even being tried for his crimes, while in reality he would be held at Riker's Island until trial. He also would likely be kept isolated from other inmates as a notorious vigilante crime fighter, which is not only for his protection but to avoid just such an incident like in the cafeteria.
* ''Franchise/WonderWoman'' [[ComicBook/WonderWoman1942 Vol 1]]: When Paula goes to trial after her HeelFaceTurn it's somewhat unclear ''what she's even on trial for''. The prosecutor brings up the murders she's been convicted of and Diana cuts him off with a mention of Double Jeopardy, but Paula should be in trouble for plotting to blow up a munitions factory (which she then did everything she could to prevent after her daughter was returned to her and the Nazis couldn't use her against Paula) and her escape from prison. While the jury is obviously sympathetic to her being forced to work for the Nazis under duress the woman still killed at least one guard (a murder she's never tried for) and escaped from prison without serving her full term. This is never brought up.

* Subverted in ''VideoGame/BatmanArkhamKnight'' where it is revealed that all the inmates from [[VideoGame/BatmanArkhamCity Arkham City]] managed to successfully sue for their release citing the prison conditions [[spoiler: and the city council's approval of and eventual use of [[FinalSolution plan to kill everyone inside it]]]] which are blatant human rights violations [[SurprisinglyRealisticOutcome that would never fly in real life]] and could only happen in [[CrapsackWorld Gotham City]].

* 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|Trope}} 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.

** 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 libeled 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 was what you said 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 dessert, 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 libelous/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.

** 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.

** The most obvious is that the law firm Jennifer works for, Goodman, Lieber, Kurtzberg, and Holliway, has, in their law library, at least for their super-human law division, nothing but boxes and boxes of Marvel comics. It is explained that, within the Marvel Universe, Marvel comics are all true, and are licensed by the superheroes who star in them, and, prior to 2002, were certified by UsefulNotes/TheComicsCode Authority, a government agency, and are therefore admissible in any courtroom in the United States. It's hard to know where to start with this one. First of all, the Comics Code Authority was never a government agency; it has always been a private ratings agency created by the comics industry itself. Secondly, even if it were a government agency, merely having a document certified by a government agency does not make it admissible, any more than does being licensed by the persons who star in the comics. Thirdly, and most importantly, even if there were no questions about the admissibility of Marvel comics into evidence, the comics are not a source of ''law''; they may be a source of ''facts'', but not law. A mere record of facts is only admissible if the facts are directly relevant to the case at hand. Also, facts recorded in a comic book would almost always be inadmissible as hearsay. The lawyers would have to provide some other source for the same facts to get them into evidence. This one, of course, is justified by RuleOfFunny and as a source of [[ContinuityNod Continuity Nods]].

* In the ''ComicBook/DickTracy'' video game, Tracy can only arrest the culprit of each case. He cannot arrest the suspects he approaches, despite them sending out thugs to try and kill him when he goes to confront them. Needless to say, in real life, they would be arrested for attempted murder by proxy.

[[folder: Manhwa]]
In ''Manhwa/LevelOnePlayer'', the in-universe Korean government and population really play fast and loose with the law, and everybody agrees that's how it is. Sure, some of it is justifiable as Players have super-natural powers and need to be held to a higher standard, but when Choi's family gets caught in the collateral damage of a CorruptPolitician who ''bills them'' for the money Choi sent them as living expenses while on the payroll, after filing ridiculous claims at what he presumed to be Choi's corpse, such as "Loss of Rented Equipment" ''that was lost in the line of duty'' and "Breach of Contract" ''as a result of dying while upholding the contract'', the lawyer the Choi family visits just goes "yeah, your only option is to petition to give up your inheritance, and hope that's enough to get out of the debt against you. Oh, and you have to vacate your family home immediately." Choi goes to the man responsible, Lee Hang-gu, and point blank asks him how such a (supposed) law makes any sense. Lee Hang-gu, for his part, just goes apoplectic and starts shouting insults about how Choi "thinks he's special despite doing nothing but just eating and shitting."
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Anime and Manga]]

** 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 jurisdictions 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.

* In ''Comicbook/{{Manhunter}}'', Kate Spencer's prosecution of Shadow Thief for the murder of Ron Raymond, aka ComicBook/{{Firestorm|DCComics}}, is ludicrous. It's hard to know where to begin, but consider the fact that Spencer calls a bunch of superheroes to testify without giving their real names without first showing that they or their families would have been in danger. Under ''United States v. Ramos-Cruz'', _ F.3d _ (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2012); ''United States v. Zelaya'', 336 F. App’x 355 (4th Cir. 2009); and ''United States v. Gutierrez de Lopez'', a witness may testify anonymously only if the prosecution can show that the witnesses or their families would be in danger otherwise (but see the note below), although the issue would be whether an anonymous witness violates either the confrontation clause or due process, and a statute cannot override a constitutional provision. Secondly, most of the witnesses weren't even legitimate witnesses in the first place: they didn't actually see the crime committed, and she just asked them questions about what a hero Firestorm was, and what a great guy he was. None of that would be relevant at trial, although some of it might be allowed at a sentencing hearing, if Shadow Thief were convicted. The bizarre part is that there were other superheroes who were present at the crime and saw it happen, at least one of whom, Comicbook/{{Vixen}}, has a public identity and could have been called as a witness; needless to say, she wasn't.[[note]]In fact, though, trial law in the DCU has been modified to allow superheroes to testify without revealing their identities; this was established in 1985's ''Tales of the Teen Titans #53'' by Marv Wolfman and Rich Buckler, if not earlier. The other points absolutely stand, though.[[/note]]
* In one issue of ''Comicbook/{{Daredevil}}'', a judge appointed under ComicBook/NormanOsborn overruled a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal trial and sent the innocent defendants to prison, ignoring 1000 years of legal precedent and the US constitution. To be fair, the Franchise/MarvelUniverse during ''Comicbook/DarkReign'' seemed to be a fascist dictatorship under Osborn, so the law probably changed to allow this verdict (which is otherwise ''completely'' illegal and unconstitutional in our world). Osborn getting that job he had in the first place, long after being exposed and jailed for being a superhuman homicidal maniac, whose standard M.O. was flying around a city throwing bombs and who once planned to murder ''all life on Earth'', is however a pretty straight example. You become ineligible for most and/or all political offices, especially at higher levels, if you've committed a felony, and Osborn was never pardoned. Oddly enough, you do ''not'' become ineligible for the US Presidency. Numerous felons (mostly political activists like Eugene Debs or Leonard Peltier) have run for President while in prison for a felony conviction (Peltier is even serving two life sentences for murder, but if elected [[LoopholeAbuse he could]] pardon ''himself'', so no worries there).
* ''Comicbook/GreenArrow'':

* A [[Comicbook/ThePunisher Punisher]] story made hash of the InsanityDefense by having a judge not remand the Punisher for psychiatric examination, but simply decreeing that he was "insane" on the basis of counsel's rhetoric (and over his vehement objection).

* ''Literature/TheSuperdictionary'': In the entry for "judge", the judge pronounces the Penguin guilty. Juries pronounce people guilty, and judges only give the sentence (except if they have a bench trial, where the defendant waives their right to a jury, which rarely happens).

** Which brings us to how they lost all their money -- not content with suing Sterling, the Digital Homicide attempted to sue 100 anonymous UsefulNotes/{{Steam}} users for criticizing their games. Not knowing their identities, Digital Homicide went to Creator/{{Valve|Corporation}} and demanded that they divulge the users' identities. Valve not only stood by their users' right to criticize Digital Homicide's games, they also found the demands so outrageous that they removed all DH games from Steam -- which was their only source of revenue. This drove them out of business quickly.