Artistic License Law: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
VisualWikitext
(clean up)
m (categories and general cleanup)
Line 39: Line 39:
** Many a German gnashes his teeth every time "Objection!" is used in works produced in Germany. German trials do not work that way; the judge is the one asking the questions, and the attorneys have the right to ask additional questions or add in statements. Most of the proceedings are a discussion of facts, which makes sense, since it's the judge or a panel of judges making the decision in the end. But of course, a thrown-out "Objection!" is much more flashy...
** Many a German gnashes his teeth every time "Objection!" is used in works produced in Germany. German trials do not work that way; the judge is the one asking the questions, and the attorneys have the right to ask additional questions or add in statements. Most of the proceedings are a discussion of facts, which makes sense, since it's the judge or a panel of judges making the decision in the end. But of course, a thrown-out "Objection!" is much more flashy...
* [[Empty Cop Threat]]: Sometimes [[Truth in Television]], in that the threat may be used by the cops or the prosecutor, but they ''know'' that it's empty.
* [[Empty Cop Threat]]: Sometimes [[Truth in Television]], in that the threat may be used by the cops or the prosecutor, but they ''know'' that it's empty.
* [[Enhanced Interrogation Techniques]]: Sometimes [[Truth in Television]], but if you even suggest it in [[Real Life]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo be prepared to have your name live on in infamy.]
* [[Enhanced Interrogation Techniques]]: Sometimes [[Truth in Television]], but if you even suggest it in [[Real Life]], [[wikipedia:John Yoo|be prepared to have your name live on in infamy.]]
* [[Frivolous Lawsuit]]: Sometimes an aversion, although in [[Real Life]] most frivolous suits are simply thrown out of court. A lawyer who brings many frivolous suits will quickly run out of money, and a lawyer who places his own interests ahead of his client's wishes could lose his license.
* [[Frivolous Lawsuit]]: Sometimes an aversion, although in [[Real Life]] most frivolous suits are simply thrown out of court. A lawyer who brings many frivolous suits will quickly run out of money, and a lawyer who places his own interests ahead of his client's wishes could lose his license.
** Lawyers are also required by law to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts of every case before filing, in order to reasonably ensure that it is legitimate; if they fail to do so, they can face sanctions such as fines, countersuits for abuse of process, misusing the court system, disbarment, and being forced to pay the other side's expenses. Courts and judges absolutely ''hate'' it when you waste their time. Do so at your extreme peril.
** Lawyers are also required by law to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts of every case before filing, in order to reasonably ensure that it is legitimate; if they fail to do so, they can face sanctions such as fines, countersuits for abuse of process, misusing the court system, disbarment, and being forced to pay the other side's expenses. Courts and judges absolutely ''hate'' it when you waste their time. Do so at your extreme peril.
Line 72: Line 72:
* [[Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique]]: If it's found to have been used in building a case, the prosecution may as well go home. Since the suspect obviously did not waive his/her right against self-incrimination, all the information that resulted from it and everything that it led to will be declared inadmissible. This is called "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree": everything that resulted from a tainted procedure is tainted itself.
* [[Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique]]: If it's found to have been used in building a case, the prosecution may as well go home. Since the suspect obviously did not waive his/her right against self-incrimination, all the information that resulted from it and everything that it led to will be declared inadmissible. This is called "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree": everything that resulted from a tainted procedure is tainted itself.
** This is not the case in Germany (and, indeed, a great shame since there had been a public and even political discussion about permitting the police to use just a little bit of torture in some cases - this was not even five years ago), where it has been ruled by the highest Court, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, that there is NO need to instill a Fruits of the Poisonous Tree policy. However, this seeming Aversion of the trope is then subverted, as the courts have been very clear that a Beweisverwertungsverbot (disallowment of evidence in court) is still instilled if it is neccessary from stopping police and other state forces from using unlawful procedures.
** This is not the case in Germany (and, indeed, a great shame since there had been a public and even political discussion about permitting the police to use just a little bit of torture in some cases - this was not even five years ago), where it has been ruled by the highest Court, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, that there is NO need to instill a Fruits of the Poisonous Tree policy. However, this seeming Aversion of the trope is then subverted, as the courts have been very clear that a Beweisverwertungsverbot (disallowment of evidence in court) is still instilled if it is neccessary from stopping police and other state forces from using unlawful procedures.
** That said, evidence obtained as a result of a [[Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique]] can still be introduced at trial if the prosecution can establish that they would have discovered the evidence anyway in the course of a normal police investigation. This principle is known as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable_discovery Inevitable Discovery].
** That said, evidence obtained as a result of a [[Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique]] can still be introduced at trial if the prosecution can establish that they would have discovered the evidence anyway in the course of a normal police investigation. This principle is known as [[wikipedia:Inevitable discovery|Inevitable Discovery]].
** Of course, if you don't care about going to trial and you're just trying to prevent a terrorist attack, that would be a justification for this trope. You may not have [[Hero Insurance]], but you'd be hard pressed to find a jury who'd convict somebody for using whatever means necessary to stop an attack in progress, even if it means letting some guilty men go free because the things you found out can't be used as evidence.
** Of course, if you don't care about going to trial and you're just trying to prevent a terrorist attack, that would be a justification for this trope. You may not have [[Hero Insurance]], but you'd be hard pressed to find a jury who'd convict somebody for using whatever means necessary to stop an attack in progress, even if it means letting some guilty men go free because the things you found out can't be used as evidence.
** And even with the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine (which applies to illegal searches also), you have to have standing to complain about a rights violation for that to get you off. In other words, it has to be your rights that the cops violated, not someone else's, for all of this to help you. If they find your drugs in your friend's car in an illegal search, well, you're out of luck. Same thing if they torture your friend and he fingers you (although it would be harder to find an appropriate hearsay exception to get it in than in a confession).
** And even with the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine (which applies to illegal searches also), you have to have standing to complain about a rights violation for that to get you off. In other words, it has to be your rights that the cops violated, not someone else's, for all of this to help you. If they find your drugs in your friend's car in an illegal search, well, you're out of luck. Same thing if they torture your friend and he fingers you (although it would be harder to find an appropriate hearsay exception to get it in than in a confession).
*** The standing rule is demonstrated quite well by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Payner United States v. Payner]'', the so-called "briefcase caper", where an IRS agent used a variety of subterfuges to get information from a Bahamanian bank official that, if they were shown in a movie or TV show, would probably trigger a lot of entries on this website or at least have the audience going "Yeah, right, they'd never get away with using that in court" (Just go read it). ''But they did'' ... when some of the documents led to evidence that an Ohio businessman was cheating on his taxes with an offshore slush find. And the Supreme Court allowed this because the businessman didn't have standing since his rights weren't violated.
*** The standing rule is demonstrated quite well by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in ''[[wikipedia:United States v. Payner|United States v. Payner]]'', the so-called "briefcase caper", where an IRS agent used a variety of subterfuges to get information from a Bahamanian bank official that, if they were shown in a movie or TV show, would probably trigger a lot of entries on this website or at least have the audience going "Yeah, right, they'd never get away with using that in court" (Just go read it). ''But they did'' ... when some of the documents led to evidence that an Ohio businessman was cheating on his taxes with an offshore slush find. And the Supreme Court allowed this because the businessman didn't have standing since his rights weren't violated.
* [[Murder Simulators]]: Often a source of [[There Should Be a Law]] moralizing. But there have been many attempts to create such a law, and American Courts have shot them all down. Australians and Germans have not been so lucky.
* [[Murder Simulators]]: Often a source of [[There Should Be a Law]] moralizing. But there have been many attempts to create such a law, and American Courts have shot them all down. Australians and Germans have not been so lucky.
** At least the German youth has not been so lucky. When you reach the age of 18 you can buy any game that has been banned due to violence. Not though if it is banned for other reasons that go against the "Grundgesetz" (German constitution).
** At least the German youth has not been so lucky. When you reach the age of 18 you can buy any game that has been banned due to violence. Not though if it is banned for other reasons that go against the "Grundgesetz" (German constitution).
Line 129: Line 129:
* [[There Is No Higher Court]]: Lots of cases are appealed at least one step up the chain. (See [[Off On a Technicality]].) Very few get to either State or Federal Supreme Court level, though. It has to involve constitutional issues, not just regular errors, for this.
* [[There Is No Higher Court]]: Lots of cases are appealed at least one step up the chain. (See [[Off On a Technicality]].) Very few get to either State or Federal Supreme Court level, though. It has to involve constitutional issues, not just regular errors, for this.
** This is not actually true. The federal Supreme Court does a lot of work on clarifying federal statutes on which lower courts have disagreed that never touch on constitutional issues, though admittedly it's better to allege a constitutional violation if you want to get to the Supreme Court. It's egregiously wrong in state courts, though. Most state high courts will do more work on statutory, procedural, or other issues than they ever do on constitutional issues.
** This is not actually true. The federal Supreme Court does a lot of work on clarifying federal statutes on which lower courts have disagreed that never touch on constitutional issues, though admittedly it's better to allege a constitutional violation if you want to get to the Supreme Court. It's egregiously wrong in state courts, though. Most state high courts will do more work on statutory, procedural, or other issues than they ever do on constitutional issues.
** Then why, in ''Law and Order,'' are criminal trials routinely held in the Supreme Court? Because [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court the Supreme Court of New York] is actually the ''lowest'' level of criminal court, with two further layers of appeal courts above it. Presumably, the framers of the state constitution got the org chart upside down....
** Then why, in ''Law and Order,'' are criminal trials routinely held in the Supreme Court? Because [[wikipedia:New York Supreme Court|the Supreme Court of New York]] is actually the ''lowest'' level of criminal court, with two further layers of appeal courts above it. Presumably, the framers of the state constitution got the org chart upside down....
*** It actually has to do with the fact that the courts in the 19th century were insanely corrupt so to defang the Supreme Court, they just made them the lowest court.
*** It actually has to do with the fact that the courts in the 19th century were insanely corrupt so to defang the Supreme Court, they just made them the lowest court.
*** Though there was one episode of ''Law and Order'' where Jack McCoy argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Oddly, the episode ended just as the clerk was walking up to hand them a copy of the decision.
*** Though there was one episode of ''Law and Order'' where Jack McCoy argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Oddly, the episode ended just as the clerk was walking up to hand them a copy of the decision.
Retrieved from "https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Artistic_License_Law"