Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
** 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]].
to:
** 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 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]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
to:
HollywoodLaw in this series.
----
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 24,66 (click to see context) :
* ''Film/{{The Incredible Hulk|2008}}'':
** General Ross decides that undergoing a government-funded medical procedure makes the person who did so the property of the government. This would probably be considered slavery under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
** Ross justifies his hunt for Banner by declaring him to be responsible for the deaths and destruction caused by Hulk's initial rampages (something he might have a good case for). This provides a legal justification for tracking down and apprehending the fugitive doctor. Unfortunately, it also makes it blatantly illegal for Ross himself to be part of that manhunt. The Posse Comitatus Act severely restricts (and in most cases, outright prohibits) the use of military personnel in law enforcement roles. This would also make all the resources that Ross uses in the manhunt a criminal misappropriation of Army property and funds.
** After finding evidence that Banner is in Brazil, Ross blatantly ignores the fact that they have had an extradition treaty with the US in place for over forty years and sends in commandos to retrieve him instead of going through the established channels to have Banner arrested and shipped home. This would cause a major international incident that could be considered an act of war. When General Ross reappears in ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar,'' he has somehow managed to become the United States Secretary of State, and his past crimes are never mentioned.
* ''Film/SpiderManHomecoming'': The inciting incident where the U.S. government takes over the salvage operations from a local contractor would not typically result in the ruination of Adrian Toomes, the local contractor. Early termination is a standard part of contracts that specifies who owes whom what in the event one party or another wishes to terminate the contract. In this case the Feds would force the City of New York to terminate their salvage operations, activating the early termination clauses with the contractors. This is typically a large payout that covers the cost of purchasing or leasing equipment and hiring employees (two items that Toomes explicitly mentions). Operating without protection from early termination is [[TooDumbToLive incredibly risky]] and unlikely to be undertaken by any sort of established businessman. In fact, Damage Control voiding Toomes' legal city contract without compensating him is highly illegal. In any situation like this, the government has a duty to compensate businesses for what is [[https://www.condemnation-law.com/blog/just-compensation-in-eminent-domain/ essentially seizure of eminent domain]], and given the stakes involved, a salvage company operating on a city contract ''in New York City'' (''the'' most contested real-estate market in the ''world''), Toomes had more than enough to sue for a big fat check from the government. In addition, contract terminations of this sort generally require some sort of official process, which would by rights result in Toomes being informed that the awarding of the salvage contract to Damage Control was being challenged and granting him a hearing in which he could defend his company's suitability to handle the job before it was taken away.
* ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar'': In real life, the Sokovia Accords could only apply to the American Avengers if constitutional law doesn't exist. The Accords apparently grants the United Nations the authority to arrest American citizens while violating their constitutional rights to due process, an attorney, and trial by jury. This doesn't make sense, since the Accords are a treaty that would have no legal impact on United States citizens unless Congress passed a law to fully ratify it. Even if Congress passed such a law (which is a big ''if'', given the hyperpartisan nature of US politics), it would likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court for violating the (aforementioned) legal rights of American citizens protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (at least). That's a small sampling of the [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2016/05/10/why-the-sokovia-accords-are-unconstitutional/ problems]] with the Accords.
!!Live-Action TV
!!!The following have their own pages:
[[index]]
* HollywoodLaw/Daredevil2015
[[/index]]
----
* ''Series/JessicaJones2015'':
** When Jessica Jones is collecting people who've been mind-controlled by Kilgrave in order to have them testify in Hope's trial:
*** They put them all together in a support group (thereby weakening all their stories because they've had time to be influenced by each other), rather than interview each person separately.
*** They don't think about subpoenaing the restaurant staff from the first few episodes. You know, the staff that have very little reason to lie and can positively say "that woman right there walked in with a creepy British guy who made us do things we didn't want to do." Nope, just go out and get a bunch of random people who at best can only testify that someone exists who can force you to do stuff (no proof that Hope was under his influence) and are far less believable, because at this point they're all mentally unstable or have good reasons for wanting to excuse their actions by lying about someone else making them do it.
** Their plan is to kidnap Kilgrave, hold him prisoner, torture him into confessing, and then use that as proof. The only time that's going to be admitted as evidence is when they all get charged with kidnapping and torture. It'll be great for a trial... Hogarth's, Trish's, and Jessica's trials. Kilgrave's? Not so much (and that's assuming he wouldn't just command the guards to release him when arrested). It's such a bad idea that Jeri tells them it would never work, and instead, they use their crime to draw a police officer to the scene and make him watch. This is also a bad idea, since he would then be obliged to arrest them, and they ''still'' can't use this against Kilgrave legally.
** Towards the end of the first season, [[spoiler:Jeri Hogarth's secretary/mistress Pam kills Hogarth's wife Wendy to save Jeri, after Kilgrave commanded Wendy to kill her]]. Afterwards, Jeri attempts to serve as Pam's counsel during her questioning by the police; given her relationship to both people and also as another victim in the case, there's a conflict of interest present. On the other hand, Jeri may have just been doing "stand-in defense" for both herself and Pam (since they're both, at minimum, persons of interest, if not suspects/witnesses) and just handling things until she can get another attorney to come down and start taking full charge of the defense; in other words, Jeri just wanted to be there to make sure Pam didn't say anything incriminating before she could arrange real, ethical, legal representation for them both and start handling the case.
** It turns out in season 2 that Hogarth Chao & Benowitz requires their attorneys to sign a “medical disclosure” clause to inform the firm of medical conditions that have the potential to affect job performance. Once Jeri’s partners learn she has ALS, they try to force her out of the law firm with a severance under the pretense it is their fiduciary duty to protect the law firm. [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2018/03/17/did-the-hogarth-chao-benowitz-llp-employment-contract-violate-the-law/ One blog]] points out that there's a small problem with this “medical disclosure” clause designed to terminate lawyers: it is illegal.
*** New York law, specifically N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, states that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to discharge anyone from their employment because of disability or predisposing genetic characteristics. Forcing employees as a condition of employment to disclose health information that can then be a pretext to fire anyone goes to the heart of protecting anyone with a “disability” from being discriminated against. There was no effort to make any reasonable accommodations for Hogarth, just remove her from the firm.
*** There was no evidence that Jeri Hogarth was no longer competent to practice law. She did not have any symptoms at the time her partners confronted her. Their plan was to dismiss her from the firm, which is discriminatory conduct based on someone’s disability. As such, the contractual requirement to disclose medical conditions required the disclosure of health information that would otherwise be protected, and used as a license to discriminate against those with medical conditions. [[LampshadeHanging It's no wonder why in his one-scene cameo, Foggy called bullshit on the medical clause]], because this in his eyes would be no different from someone firing Matt from a law firm on the grounds that his blindness rendered him incompetent from practicing law.
*** The irony is, there ''are'' valid reasons to terminate Jeri Hogarth. She has committed jury tampering, which is grounds for disbarment; asking Jessica to rough up Wendy as inducement to sign a divorce agreement was a crime; having an affair with her secretary Pam, which while not a crime was an HR nightmare waiting to happen, and they had to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit from Pam; attempting to use Kilgrave to secure Wendy’s signature on divorce papers resulted in Wendy’s death; her illegal purchase of a handgun from Turk Barrett to later use in a homicide (making Jeri guilty of murder by proxy); her ruining Kith's marriage and driving Peter to suicide (in season 3); and it's up for debate whether her entertaining with HookersAndBlow was illegal.
*** Throw in the fact that Jeri’s practice includes criminal defense (cases like Jessica, her mother, Hope, etc, plus a lot of Foggy and Marci's cases), patent litigation, and estates (her work with Danny Rand), [[OmnidisciplinaryLawyer which are all highly specialized practice areas]]. This is like a doctor who is an orthodontist, vascular surgeon, and pediatrician. Sure, it is possible, just highly unlikely. Moreover, Jeri’s malpractice insurance has to be expensive.
*** But instead of going after Jeri for any of her serious ethical breaches as grounds for termination, Chao and Benowitz picked discrimination against someone with a disability as their beach to die on. Not the best legal strategy.
** Jessica Jones in season 3 appears to be susceptible to “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.” This doesn’t extend to people who aren't in law enforcement or work for them, and definitely not “anonymous tips.” The pictures and the claimed connection would be more than enough for a warrant to search Sallinger’s apartment.
** Trish Walker's downfall at the end of season 3 sees her snap, kill three serial murderers (including Sallinger), and then get brought in by Jessica. She is then sent off to the Raft, established in ''Captain America: Civil War'' to be this submarine prison for enhanced individuals. There are several problems with this:
*** First off, Costa says the people on the Raft “pulled jurisdiction” on Trish. They never make clear what that means. Yet the Raft, at least as established in ''Captain America: Civil War'', seemed to be created ad hoc for the Sokovia Accords. International agreements like the Sokovia Accords do not override the U.S. Constitution, especially agreements that weren’t even ratified by the United States, so there's no explanation as to how they could possibly get jurisdiction over Trish when all her crimes are state crimes in New York State.[[note]]On the other hand, it's possible that maybe it just means Trish falls under federal scrutiny, since ''Film/AntManAndTheWasp'' showed Scott and co. having an FBI agent who monitored them[[/note]]
*** More problematic is the implication is that Trish wouldn’t even get a trial. Which is ''terrible''. Costa says that due process doesn’t apply to supers, which is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment (the right to a trial and due process), as well as the Eighth Amendment (which holds that the punishment must be proportional to the crime). It’s actually a double whammy there: first, it's hard to imagine how ''an underwater prison'' is a proportional punishment even to Trish’s (numerous) crimes; second, it’s explicitly stated that she’s being treated differently because she’s enhanced. This is a ''status crime'' (where you’re punished just for being who you are) which, surprise surprise, is unconstitutional in the United States (and also violates international laws).
* ''Series/LukeCage2016'':
*** Every time a suspect asks for a lawyer, the interrogator continues asking questions, hoping to pressure the suspect into talking. Even Inspector Ridley, who is characterized by her belief in following the system, does so. In reality, the police ''must'' end an interrogation the moment a suspect asks for legal counsel, and can only resume once a lawyer has arrived. [[LoopholeAbuse While there ARE instances where cops try to skirt around this]], they usually try to do so by changing the subject or asserting that their past or present questions weren't part of any "official" interrogation, not by simply ''ignoring'' the request as seen in this show. If they do, and it's recorded, anything they get after this isn't usable in court.
*** Only once has this actually played realistically. In the second episode of season 2, Misty lets herself into the interrogation room to question Arturo Rey, after he's already lawyered up. After Donovan shows up to bail out Arturo Rey, Ridenhour calls Misty out on this.
** After the Candace interrogation in "Blowin' Up the Spot", Mariah leaves, telling Misty, "You know what, I'm not under arrest, and I change my mind: you wanna talk to me, you call my lawyer." The statement "contact me through my lawyer" does NOT apply to police officers, meaning the cops could still call Mariah back for questioning if they had any reason to without having to go through her lawyers. "Contact me through my lawyer" only applies to other lawyers, as they have ethical rules stating, for instance, that a lawyer may not contact an opponent who has retained their own counsel (to stop a lawyer browbeating the other side into confessing, or in a civil case, stop them from coercing concessions etc. from them).
** [[BailEqualsFreedom Shades making bail]] is treated as if he skated on all criminal charges he was facing. Posting bail is not the same thing as "cleared of all charges." Bail is a guarantee of a later appearance in court. If you don't appear, it means you'll be tracked down and arrested, then put in jail until your trial, plus faced with a bail-jumping charge too. Furthermore, people on bail tend to be subject to various other restrictions on what activities they can engage in, meaning Misty would've had grounds to rearrest Shades when she, Luke and Claire caught him and Mariah at Pops' barbershop.
** During Shades' interrogation, Inspector Ridley says that as a participant in Diamondback's hostage situation, Shades is facing multiple kidnapping with a weapon charges. In real life, as one hostage was killed during the course of the hostage situation, he (and every other participant) would also be charged with FelonyMurder for the murder of Damon Boone. In fact, it's amazing Shades even was granted bail in the first place, as there are multiple witnesses who would have seen him holding the hostages and he came at a police officer and a civilian while armed with a gun, which is two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (It's implied that a judge may have been paid off, seeing as Shades and Mariah pay off another judge in order to get Arturo Rey bailed out)
** In real life, Misty would probably be forced to recuse herself from the case once Luke became a suspect/person of interest in the Cottonmouth crimes. Her one-night stand with him generates a conflict of interest.
** Luke's backstory plays fast and loose with human research ethics (which have been codified into law since WWII). FDA regulations explicitly forbid the use of prisoners in research providing no direct benefit, except in very specific cases (most of which require that the research have no or minimal risk). They also forbid using reduced sentencing as an incentive toward consent--that's textbook coercion. That said, it is established that Seagate is a very corrupt prison, so they may be fully aware that they are breaking the law.
** The NYPD doesn't have a 29th Precinct. The 29th Precinct is a fictional establishment created because the NYPD requires films and TV shows to use fictional precinct numbers to tell film cars apart from in-service patrol cars. The 29th happens to fall within the numbers of the actual police precincts for Harlem: the 23rd, 25th, 28th, 30th, and 32nd.
** Misty mocks Shades for dismissing his lawyer [[spoiler:halfway through his confession, causing him to be unaware of the terms of his deal. But his lawyer would have had to make the terms of the deal clear to him ''before'' he decided to take it and make his confession, not after]]. Unlike real property or the hearsay rule, legal ethics is fairly straightforward.
* ''Series/IronFist2017'':
** A minor case, but when the DEA SWAT team raids Colleen's dojo on the "tip" from Harold's frameup, they kick in the door without first shouting "Police! Open the door!" Part of the reason the police do that is... pretty much to avoid this ''exact'' situation; there ''is'' a significant percentage of civilians with combat training, many of which live in high-crime neighborhoods ''just like Colleen's'' where having their homes invaded by violent criminals is a ''very real possibility.'' Sure, Colleen and Danny only gave them two seconds, but that's more than enough time to then shout the two words law enforcement are legally ''required'' to the ''instant'' a raid begins and ''before'' shots are fired so as to avoid entrapment -- so that suspects know that the invaders are ''not'' criminals and they'll be in trouble if they fight back. [[spoiler:This probably helps with Danny's WrongfulAccusationInsurance at the end of the episode -- though, too, the "[[ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney generous contribution to the DEA Widows and Children's Fund]]" was probably a lot more effective]]. The only legal exception is if they have reason to believe the suspects will destroy evidence upon hearing the police are at the door, and they need a special "no-knock" warrant to not announce their presence.
** The board of directors cannot simply "oust" Danny, Ward, and Joy from the company, as they're the majority shareholders. For them to even ''be'' directors requires Danny's approval.
** The chemical plant lawsuit that affects Rand Enterprises midway through season 1, wherein Rand is being sued by some Staten Island residents who claim to have come down with cancer as a result of chemicals being manufactured at the plant. The plaintiffs' case doesn't have a leg to stand on. There’s no proof that the chemical plant causes cancer. As Joy points out, Rand Enterprises have met all legal and environmental requirements, so they’re not really in the wrong. The issue would be with the lawmakers. Even if there is a correlation between the chemical plant and the cancer cases, it doesn’t necessarily prove causation. But then the plaintiffs' lawyer rather stupidly decides to have one of his clients try to coerce an admission of guilt from Danny, while he films it for blackmail purposes. The Meachums and the board are worried about it, when in reality it would be a slam-dunk for Rand Enterprises. The video wouldn’t stand up in court and this lawyer would be very lucky if he only got disbarred (because blackmail is illegal).
** General Ross decides that undergoing a government-funded medical procedure makes the person who did so the property of the government. This would probably be considered slavery under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
** Ross justifies his hunt for Banner by declaring him to be responsible for the deaths and destruction caused by Hulk's initial rampages (something he might have a good case for). This provides a legal justification for tracking down and apprehending the fugitive doctor. Unfortunately, it also makes it blatantly illegal for Ross himself to be part of that manhunt. The Posse Comitatus Act severely restricts (and in most cases, outright prohibits) the use of military personnel in law enforcement roles. This would also make all the resources that Ross uses in the manhunt a criminal misappropriation of Army property and funds.
** After finding evidence that Banner is in Brazil, Ross blatantly ignores the fact that they have had an extradition treaty with the US in place for over forty years and sends in commandos to retrieve him instead of going through the established channels to have Banner arrested and shipped home. This would cause a major international incident that could be considered an act of war. When General Ross reappears in ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar,'' he has somehow managed to become the United States Secretary of State, and his past crimes are never mentioned.
* ''Film/SpiderManHomecoming'': The inciting incident where the U.S. government takes over the salvage operations from a local contractor would not typically result in the ruination of Adrian Toomes, the local contractor. Early termination is a standard part of contracts that specifies who owes whom what in the event one party or another wishes to terminate the contract. In this case the Feds would force the City of New York to terminate their salvage operations, activating the early termination clauses with the contractors. This is typically a large payout that covers the cost of purchasing or leasing equipment and hiring employees (two items that Toomes explicitly mentions). Operating without protection from early termination is [[TooDumbToLive incredibly risky]] and unlikely to be undertaken by any sort of established businessman. In fact, Damage Control voiding Toomes' legal city contract without compensating him is highly illegal. In any situation like this, the government has a duty to compensate businesses for what is [[https://www.condemnation-law.com/blog/just-compensation-in-eminent-domain/ essentially seizure of eminent domain]], and given the stakes involved, a salvage company operating on a city contract ''in New York City'' (''the'' most contested real-estate market in the ''world''), Toomes had more than enough to sue for a big fat check from the government. In addition, contract terminations of this sort generally require some sort of official process, which would by rights result in Toomes being informed that the awarding of the salvage contract to Damage Control was being challenged and granting him a hearing in which he could defend his company's suitability to handle the job before it was taken away.
* ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar'': In real life, the Sokovia Accords could only apply to the American Avengers if constitutional law doesn't exist. The Accords apparently grants the United Nations the authority to arrest American citizens while violating their constitutional rights to due process, an attorney, and trial by jury. This doesn't make sense, since the Accords are a treaty that would have no legal impact on United States citizens unless Congress passed a law to fully ratify it. Even if Congress passed such a law (which is a big ''if'', given the hyperpartisan nature of US politics), it would likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court for violating the (aforementioned) legal rights of American citizens protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (at least). That's a small sampling of the [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2016/05/10/why-the-sokovia-accords-are-unconstitutional/ problems]] with the Accords.
!!Live-Action TV
!!!The following have their own pages:
[[index]]
* HollywoodLaw/Daredevil2015
[[/index]]
----
* ''Series/JessicaJones2015'':
** When Jessica Jones is collecting people who've been mind-controlled by Kilgrave in order to have them testify in Hope's trial:
*** They put them all together in a support group (thereby weakening all their stories because they've had time to be influenced by each other), rather than interview each person separately.
*** They don't think about subpoenaing the restaurant staff from the first few episodes. You know, the staff that have very little reason to lie and can positively say "that woman right there walked in with a creepy British guy who made us do things we didn't want to do." Nope, just go out and get a bunch of random people who at best can only testify that someone exists who can force you to do stuff (no proof that Hope was under his influence) and are far less believable, because at this point they're all mentally unstable or have good reasons for wanting to excuse their actions by lying about someone else making them do it.
** Their plan is to kidnap Kilgrave, hold him prisoner, torture him into confessing, and then use that as proof. The only time that's going to be admitted as evidence is when they all get charged with kidnapping and torture. It'll be great for a trial... Hogarth's, Trish's, and Jessica's trials. Kilgrave's? Not so much (and that's assuming he wouldn't just command the guards to release him when arrested). It's such a bad idea that Jeri tells them it would never work, and instead, they use their crime to draw a police officer to the scene and make him watch. This is also a bad idea, since he would then be obliged to arrest them, and they ''still'' can't use this against Kilgrave legally.
** Towards the end of the first season, [[spoiler:Jeri Hogarth's secretary/mistress Pam kills Hogarth's wife Wendy to save Jeri, after Kilgrave commanded Wendy to kill her]]. Afterwards, Jeri attempts to serve as Pam's counsel during her questioning by the police; given her relationship to both people and also as another victim in the case, there's a conflict of interest present. On the other hand, Jeri may have just been doing "stand-in defense" for both herself and Pam (since they're both, at minimum, persons of interest, if not suspects/witnesses) and just handling things until she can get another attorney to come down and start taking full charge of the defense; in other words, Jeri just wanted to be there to make sure Pam didn't say anything incriminating before she could arrange real, ethical, legal representation for them both and start handling the case.
** It turns out in season 2 that Hogarth Chao & Benowitz requires their attorneys to sign a “medical disclosure” clause to inform the firm of medical conditions that have the potential to affect job performance. Once Jeri’s partners learn she has ALS, they try to force her out of the law firm with a severance under the pretense it is their fiduciary duty to protect the law firm. [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2018/03/17/did-the-hogarth-chao-benowitz-llp-employment-contract-violate-the-law/ One blog]] points out that there's a small problem with this “medical disclosure” clause designed to terminate lawyers: it is illegal.
*** New York law, specifically N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, states that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to discharge anyone from their employment because of disability or predisposing genetic characteristics. Forcing employees as a condition of employment to disclose health information that can then be a pretext to fire anyone goes to the heart of protecting anyone with a “disability” from being discriminated against. There was no effort to make any reasonable accommodations for Hogarth, just remove her from the firm.
*** There was no evidence that Jeri Hogarth was no longer competent to practice law. She did not have any symptoms at the time her partners confronted her. Their plan was to dismiss her from the firm, which is discriminatory conduct based on someone’s disability. As such, the contractual requirement to disclose medical conditions required the disclosure of health information that would otherwise be protected, and used as a license to discriminate against those with medical conditions. [[LampshadeHanging It's no wonder why in his one-scene cameo, Foggy called bullshit on the medical clause]], because this in his eyes would be no different from someone firing Matt from a law firm on the grounds that his blindness rendered him incompetent from practicing law.
*** The irony is, there ''are'' valid reasons to terminate Jeri Hogarth. She has committed jury tampering, which is grounds for disbarment; asking Jessica to rough up Wendy as inducement to sign a divorce agreement was a crime; having an affair with her secretary Pam, which while not a crime was an HR nightmare waiting to happen, and they had to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit from Pam; attempting to use Kilgrave to secure Wendy’s signature on divorce papers resulted in Wendy’s death; her illegal purchase of a handgun from Turk Barrett to later use in a homicide (making Jeri guilty of murder by proxy); her ruining Kith's marriage and driving Peter to suicide (in season 3); and it's up for debate whether her entertaining with HookersAndBlow was illegal.
*** Throw in the fact that Jeri’s practice includes criminal defense (cases like Jessica, her mother, Hope, etc, plus a lot of Foggy and Marci's cases), patent litigation, and estates (her work with Danny Rand), [[OmnidisciplinaryLawyer which are all highly specialized practice areas]]. This is like a doctor who is an orthodontist, vascular surgeon, and pediatrician. Sure, it is possible, just highly unlikely. Moreover, Jeri’s malpractice insurance has to be expensive.
*** But instead of going after Jeri for any of her serious ethical breaches as grounds for termination, Chao and Benowitz picked discrimination against someone with a disability as their beach to die on. Not the best legal strategy.
** Jessica Jones in season 3 appears to be susceptible to “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.” This doesn’t extend to people who aren't in law enforcement or work for them, and definitely not “anonymous tips.” The pictures and the claimed connection would be more than enough for a warrant to search Sallinger’s apartment.
** Trish Walker's downfall at the end of season 3 sees her snap, kill three serial murderers (including Sallinger), and then get brought in by Jessica. She is then sent off to the Raft, established in ''Captain America: Civil War'' to be this submarine prison for enhanced individuals. There are several problems with this:
*** First off, Costa says the people on the Raft “pulled jurisdiction” on Trish. They never make clear what that means. Yet the Raft, at least as established in ''Captain America: Civil War'', seemed to be created ad hoc for the Sokovia Accords. International agreements like the Sokovia Accords do not override the U.S. Constitution, especially agreements that weren’t even ratified by the United States, so there's no explanation as to how they could possibly get jurisdiction over Trish when all her crimes are state crimes in New York State.[[note]]On the other hand, it's possible that maybe it just means Trish falls under federal scrutiny, since ''Film/AntManAndTheWasp'' showed Scott and co. having an FBI agent who monitored them[[/note]]
*** More problematic is the implication is that Trish wouldn’t even get a trial. Which is ''terrible''. Costa says that due process doesn’t apply to supers, which is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment (the right to a trial and due process), as well as the Eighth Amendment (which holds that the punishment must be proportional to the crime). It’s actually a double whammy there: first, it's hard to imagine how ''an underwater prison'' is a proportional punishment even to Trish’s (numerous) crimes; second, it’s explicitly stated that she’s being treated differently because she’s enhanced. This is a ''status crime'' (where you’re punished just for being who you are) which, surprise surprise, is unconstitutional in the United States (and also violates international laws).
* ''Series/LukeCage2016'':
*** Every time a suspect asks for a lawyer, the interrogator continues asking questions, hoping to pressure the suspect into talking. Even Inspector Ridley, who is characterized by her belief in following the system, does so. In reality, the police ''must'' end an interrogation the moment a suspect asks for legal counsel, and can only resume once a lawyer has arrived. [[LoopholeAbuse While there ARE instances where cops try to skirt around this]], they usually try to do so by changing the subject or asserting that their past or present questions weren't part of any "official" interrogation, not by simply ''ignoring'' the request as seen in this show. If they do, and it's recorded, anything they get after this isn't usable in court.
*** Only once has this actually played realistically. In the second episode of season 2, Misty lets herself into the interrogation room to question Arturo Rey, after he's already lawyered up. After Donovan shows up to bail out Arturo Rey, Ridenhour calls Misty out on this.
** After the Candace interrogation in "Blowin' Up the Spot", Mariah leaves, telling Misty, "You know what, I'm not under arrest, and I change my mind: you wanna talk to me, you call my lawyer." The statement "contact me through my lawyer" does NOT apply to police officers, meaning the cops could still call Mariah back for questioning if they had any reason to without having to go through her lawyers. "Contact me through my lawyer" only applies to other lawyers, as they have ethical rules stating, for instance, that a lawyer may not contact an opponent who has retained their own counsel (to stop a lawyer browbeating the other side into confessing, or in a civil case, stop them from coercing concessions etc. from them).
** [[BailEqualsFreedom Shades making bail]] is treated as if he skated on all criminal charges he was facing. Posting bail is not the same thing as "cleared of all charges." Bail is a guarantee of a later appearance in court. If you don't appear, it means you'll be tracked down and arrested, then put in jail until your trial, plus faced with a bail-jumping charge too. Furthermore, people on bail tend to be subject to various other restrictions on what activities they can engage in, meaning Misty would've had grounds to rearrest Shades when she, Luke and Claire caught him and Mariah at Pops' barbershop.
** During Shades' interrogation, Inspector Ridley says that as a participant in Diamondback's hostage situation, Shades is facing multiple kidnapping with a weapon charges. In real life, as one hostage was killed during the course of the hostage situation, he (and every other participant) would also be charged with FelonyMurder for the murder of Damon Boone. In fact, it's amazing Shades even was granted bail in the first place, as there are multiple witnesses who would have seen him holding the hostages and he came at a police officer and a civilian while armed with a gun, which is two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (It's implied that a judge may have been paid off, seeing as Shades and Mariah pay off another judge in order to get Arturo Rey bailed out)
** In real life, Misty would probably be forced to recuse herself from the case once Luke became a suspect/person of interest in the Cottonmouth crimes. Her one-night stand with him generates a conflict of interest.
** Luke's backstory plays fast and loose with human research ethics (which have been codified into law since WWII). FDA regulations explicitly forbid the use of prisoners in research providing no direct benefit, except in very specific cases (most of which require that the research have no or minimal risk). They also forbid using reduced sentencing as an incentive toward consent--that's textbook coercion. That said, it is established that Seagate is a very corrupt prison, so they may be fully aware that they are breaking the law.
** The NYPD doesn't have a 29th Precinct. The 29th Precinct is a fictional establishment created because the NYPD requires films and TV shows to use fictional precinct numbers to tell film cars apart from in-service patrol cars. The 29th happens to fall within the numbers of the actual police precincts for Harlem: the 23rd, 25th, 28th, 30th, and 32nd.
** Misty mocks Shades for dismissing his lawyer [[spoiler:halfway through his confession, causing him to be unaware of the terms of his deal. But his lawyer would have had to make the terms of the deal clear to him ''before'' he decided to take it and make his confession, not after]]. Unlike real property or the hearsay rule, legal ethics is fairly straightforward.
* ''Series/IronFist2017'':
** A minor case, but when the DEA SWAT team raids Colleen's dojo on the "tip" from Harold's frameup, they kick in the door without first shouting "Police! Open the door!" Part of the reason the police do that is... pretty much to avoid this ''exact'' situation; there ''is'' a significant percentage of civilians with combat training, many of which live in high-crime neighborhoods ''just like Colleen's'' where having their homes invaded by violent criminals is a ''very real possibility.'' Sure, Colleen and Danny only gave them two seconds, but that's more than enough time to then shout the two words law enforcement are legally ''required'' to the ''instant'' a raid begins and ''before'' shots are fired so as to avoid entrapment -- so that suspects know that the invaders are ''not'' criminals and they'll be in trouble if they fight back. [[spoiler:This probably helps with Danny's WrongfulAccusationInsurance at the end of the episode -- though, too, the "[[ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney generous contribution to the DEA Widows and Children's Fund]]" was probably a lot more effective]]. The only legal exception is if they have reason to believe the suspects will destroy evidence upon hearing the police are at the door, and they need a special "no-knock" warrant to not announce their presence.
** The board of directors cannot simply "oust" Danny, Ward, and Joy from the company, as they're the majority shareholders. For them to even ''be'' directors requires Danny's approval.
** The chemical plant lawsuit that affects Rand Enterprises midway through season 1, wherein Rand is being sued by some Staten Island residents who claim to have come down with cancer as a result of chemicals being manufactured at the plant. The plaintiffs' case doesn't have a leg to stand on. There’s no proof that the chemical plant causes cancer. As Joy points out, Rand Enterprises have met all legal and environmental requirements, so they’re not really in the wrong. The issue would be with the lawmakers. Even if there is a correlation between the chemical plant and the cancer cases, it doesn’t necessarily prove causation. But then the plaintiffs' lawyer rather stupidly decides to have one of his clients try to coerce an admission of guilt from Danny, while he films it for blackmail purposes. The Meachums and the board are worried about it, when in reality it would be a slam-dunk for Rand Enterprises. The video wouldn’t stand up in court and this lawyer would be very lucky if he only got disbarred (because blackmail is illegal).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
!!!The following have their own pages:
[[index]]
* HollywoodLaw/MarvelCinematicUniverse
[[/index]]
----
[[index]]
* HollywoodLaw/MarvelCinematicUniverse
[[/index]]
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
!Franchise/MarvelUniverse
!!Comic Books
* 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).
* 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).
* 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 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]].
** 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.
!!Films
* In ''Film/Daredevil2003'', the only scene of hero Matt Murdock actually acting as a lawyer that made it to the theatrical cut was of him seemingly seeking a conviction for a rape suspect. The catch? Matt is a defense attorney, a fact emphasized by the voluminous material that was cut from the movie. So while, in RealLife, you MAY see a victim's advocate making submissions at sentencing in many jurisdictions, there's no way in hell that Murdock would have been making arguments in court and getting annoyed that the defendant was acquitted. Matt ''could'' have been suing the guy in tort for the rape, but even in that case he ''still'' wouldn't be on the defense side of things. The comics' Daredevil is always a defense attorney--perhaps they didn't think that would be sympathetic enough?
* ''Film/{{The Incredible Hulk|2008}}'':
** General Ross decides that undergoing a government-funded medical procedure makes the person who did so the property of the government. This would probably be considered slavery under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
** Ross justifies his hunt for Banner by declaring him to be responsible for the deaths and destruction caused by Hulk's initial rampages (something he might have a good case for). This provides a legal justification for tracking down and apprehending the fugitive doctor. Unfortunately, it also makes it blatantly illegal for Ross himself to be part of that manhunt. The Posse Comitatus Act severely restricts (and in most cases, outright prohibits) the use of military personnel in law enforcement roles. This would also make all the resources that Ross uses in the manhunt a criminal misappropriation of Army property and funds.
** After finding evidence that Banner is in Brazil, Ross blatantly ignores the fact that they have had an extradition treaty with the US in place for over forty years and sends in commandos to retrieve him instead of going through the established channels to have Banner arrested and shipped home. This would cause a major international incident that could be considered an act of war. When General Ross reappears in ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar,'' he has somehow managed to become the United States Secretary of State, and his past crimes are never mentioned.
* ''Film/SpiderManHomecoming'': The inciting incident where the U.S. government takes over the salvage operations from a local contractor would not typically result in the ruination of Adrian Toomes, the local contractor. Early termination is a standard part of contracts that specifies who owes whom what in the event one party or another wishes to terminate the contract. In this case the Feds would force the City of New York to terminate their salvage operations, activating the early termination clauses with the contractors. This is typically a large payout that covers the cost of purchasing or leasing equipment and hiring employees (two items that Toomes explicitly mentions). Operating without protection from early termination is [[TooDumbToLive incredibly risky]] and unlikely to be undertaken by any sort of established businessman. In fact, Damage Control voiding Toomes' legal city contract without compensating him is highly illegal. In any situation like this, the government has a duty to compensate businesses for what is [[https://www.condemnation-law.com/blog/just-compensation-in-eminent-domain/ essentially seizure of eminent domain]], and given the stakes involved, a salvage company operating on a city contract ''in New York City'' (''the'' most contested real-estate market in the ''world''), Toomes had more than enough to sue for a big fat check from the government. In addition, contract terminations of this sort generally require some sort of official process, which would by rights result in Toomes being informed that the awarding of the salvage contract to Damage Control was being challenged and granting him a hearing in which he could defend his company's suitability to handle the job before it was taken away.
* ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar'': In real life, the Sokovia Accords could only apply to the American Avengers if constitutional law doesn't exist. The Accords apparently grants the United Nations the authority to arrest American citizens while violating their constitutional rights to due process, an attorney, and trial by jury. This doesn't make sense, since the Accords are a treaty that would have no legal impact on United States citizens unless Congress passed a law to fully ratify it. Even if Congress passed such a law (which is a big ''if'', given the hyperpartisan nature of US politics), it would likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court for violating the (aforementioned) legal rights of American citizens protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (at least). That's a small sampling of the [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2016/05/10/why-the-sokovia-accords-are-unconstitutional/ problems]] with the Accords.
!!Live-Action TV
!!!The following have their own pages:
[[index]]
* HollywoodLaw/Daredevil2015
[[/index]]
----
* ''Series/JessicaJones2015'':
** When Jessica Jones is collecting people who've been mind-controlled by Kilgrave in order to have them testify in Hope's trial:
*** They put them all together in a support group (thereby weakening all their stories because they've had time to be influenced by each other), rather than interview each person separately.
*** They don't think about subpoenaing the restaurant staff from the first few episodes. You know, the staff that have very little reason to lie and can positively say "that woman right there walked in with a creepy British guy who made us do things we didn't want to do." Nope, just go out and get a bunch of random people who at best can only testify that someone exists who can force you to do stuff (no proof that Hope was under his influence) and are far less believable, because at this point they're all mentally unstable or have good reasons for wanting to excuse their actions by lying about someone else making them do it.
** Their plan is to kidnap Kilgrave, hold him prisoner, torture him into confessing, and then use that as proof. The only time that's going to be admitted as evidence is when they all get charged with kidnapping and torture. It'll be great for a trial... Hogarth's, Trish's, and Jessica's trials. Kilgrave's? Not so much (and that's assuming he wouldn't just command the guards to release him when arrested). It's such a bad idea that Jeri tells them it would never work, and instead, they use their crime to draw a police officer to the scene and make him watch. This is also a bad idea, since he would then be obliged to arrest them, and they ''still'' can't use this against Kilgrave legally.
** Towards the end of the first season, [[spoiler:Jeri Hogarth's secretary/mistress Pam kills Hogarth's wife Wendy to save Jeri, after Kilgrave commanded Wendy to kill her]]. Afterwards, Jeri attempts to serve as Pam's counsel during her questioning by the police; given her relationship to both people and also as another victim in the case, there's a conflict of interest present. On the other hand, Jeri may have just been doing "stand-in defense" for both herself and Pam (since they're both, at minimum, persons of interest, if not suspects/witnesses) and just handling things until she can get another attorney to come down and start taking full charge of the defense; in other words, Jeri just wanted to be there to make sure Pam didn't say anything incriminating before she could arrange real, ethical, legal representation for them both and start handling the case.
** It turns out in season 2 that Hogarth Chao & Benowitz requires their attorneys to sign a “medical disclosure” clause to inform the firm of medical conditions that have the potential to affect job performance. Once Jeri’s partners learn she has ALS, they try to force her out of the law firm with a severance under the pretense it is their fiduciary duty to protect the law firm. [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2018/03/17/did-the-hogarth-chao-benowitz-llp-employment-contract-violate-the-law/ One blog]] points out that there's a small problem with this “medical disclosure” clause designed to terminate lawyers: it is illegal.
*** New York law, specifically N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, states that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to discharge anyone from their employment because of disability or predisposing genetic characteristics. Forcing employees as a condition of employment to disclose health information that can then be a pretext to fire anyone goes to the heart of protecting anyone with a “disability” from being discriminated against. There was no effort to make any reasonable accommodations for Hogarth, just remove her from the firm.
*** There was no evidence that Jeri Hogarth was no longer competent to practice law. She did not have any symptoms at the time her partners confronted her. Their plan was to dismiss her from the firm, which is discriminatory conduct based on someone’s disability. As such, the contractual requirement to disclose medical conditions required the disclosure of health information that would otherwise be protected, and used as a license to discriminate against those with medical conditions. [[LampshadeHanging It's no wonder why in his one-scene cameo, Foggy called bullshit on the medical clause]], because this in his eyes would be no different from someone firing Matt from a law firm on the grounds that his blindness rendered him incompetent from practicing law.
*** The irony is, there ''are'' valid reasons to terminate Jeri Hogarth. She has committed jury tampering, which is grounds for disbarment; asking Jessica to rough up Wendy as inducement to sign a divorce agreement was a crime; having an affair with her secretary Pam, which while not a crime was an HR nightmare waiting to happen, and they had to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit from Pam; attempting to use Kilgrave to secure Wendy’s signature on divorce papers resulted in Wendy’s death; her illegal purchase of a handgun from Turk Barrett to later use in a homicide (making Jeri guilty of murder by proxy); her ruining Kith's marriage and driving Peter to suicide (in season 3); and it's up for debate whether her entertaining with HookersAndBlow was illegal.
*** Throw in the fact that Jeri’s practice includes criminal defense (cases like Jessica, her mother, Hope, etc, plus a lot of Foggy and Marci's cases), patent litigation, and estates (her work with Danny Rand), [[OmnidisciplinaryLawyer which are all highly specialized practice areas]]. This is like a doctor who is an orthodontist, vascular surgeon, and pediatrician. Sure, it is possible, just highly unlikely. Moreover, Jeri’s malpractice insurance has to be expensive.
*** But instead of going after Jeri for any of her serious ethical breaches as grounds for termination, Chao and Benowitz picked discrimination against someone with a disability as their beach to die on. Not the best legal strategy.
** Jessica Jones in season 3 appears to be susceptible to “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.” This doesn’t extend to people who aren't in law enforcement or work for them, and definitely not “anonymous tips.” The pictures and the claimed connection would be more than enough for a warrant to search Sallinger’s apartment.
** Trish Walker's downfall at the end of season 3 sees her snap, kill three serial murderers (including Sallinger), and then get brought in by Jessica. She is then sent off to the Raft, established in ''Captain America: Civil War'' to be this submarine prison for enhanced individuals. There are several problems with this:
*** First off, Costa says the people on the Raft “pulled jurisdiction” on Trish. They never make clear what that means. Yet the Raft, at least as established in ''Captain America: Civil War'', seemed to be created ad hoc for the Sokovia Accords. International agreements like the Sokovia Accords do not override the U.S. Constitution, especially agreements that weren’t even ratified by the United States, so there's no explanation as to how they could possibly get jurisdiction over Trish when all her crimes are state crimes in New York State.[[note]]On the other hand, it's possible that maybe it just means Trish falls under federal scrutiny, since ''Film/AntManAndTheWasp'' showed Scott and co. having an FBI agent who monitored them[[/note]]
*** More problematic is the implication is that Trish wouldn’t even get a trial. Which is ''terrible''. Costa says that due process doesn’t apply to supers, which is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment (the right to a trial and due process), as well as the Eighth Amendment (which holds that the punishment must be proportional to the crime). It’s actually a double whammy there: first, it's hard to imagine how ''an underwater prison'' is a proportional punishment even to Trish’s (numerous) crimes; second, it’s explicitly stated that she’s being treated differently because she’s enhanced. This is a ''status crime'' (where you’re punished just for being who you are) which, surprise surprise, is unconstitutional in the United States (and also violates international laws).
* ''Series/LukeCage2016'':
*** Every time a suspect asks for a lawyer, the interrogator continues asking questions, hoping to pressure the suspect into talking. Even Inspector Ridley, who is characterized by her belief in following the system, does so. In reality, the police ''must'' end an interrogation the moment a suspect asks for legal counsel, and can only resume once a lawyer has arrived. [[LoopholeAbuse While there ARE instances where cops try to skirt around this]], they usually try to do so by changing the subject or asserting that their past or present questions weren't part of any "official" interrogation, not by simply ''ignoring'' the request as seen in this show. If they do, and it's recorded, anything they get after this isn't usable in court.
*** Only once has this actually played realistically. In the second episode of season 2, Misty lets herself into the interrogation room to question Arturo Rey, after he's already lawyered up. After Donovan shows up to bail out Arturo Rey, Ridenhour calls Misty out on this.
** After the Candace interrogation in "Blowin' Up the Spot", Mariah leaves, telling Misty, "You know what, I'm not under arrest, and I change my mind: you wanna talk to me, you call my lawyer." The statement "contact me through my lawyer" does NOT apply to police officers, meaning the cops could still call Mariah back for questioning if they had any reason to without having to go through her lawyers. "Contact me through my lawyer" only applies to other lawyers, as they have ethical rules stating, for instance, that a lawyer may not contact an opponent who has retained their own counsel (to stop a lawyer browbeating the other side into confessing, or in a civil case, stop them from coercing concessions etc. from them).
** [[BailEqualsFreedom Shades making bail]] is treated as if he skated on all criminal charges he was facing. Posting bail is not the same thing as "cleared of all charges." Bail is a guarantee of a later appearance in court. If you don't appear, it means you'll be tracked down and arrested, then put in jail until your trial, plus faced with a bail-jumping charge too. Furthermore, people on bail tend to be subject to various other restrictions on what activities they can engage in, meaning Misty would've had grounds to rearrest Shades when she, Luke and Claire caught him and Mariah at Pops' barbershop.
** During Shades' interrogation, Inspector Ridley says that as a participant in Diamondback's hostage situation, Shades is facing multiple kidnapping with a weapon charges. In real life, as one hostage was killed during the course of the hostage situation, he (and every other participant) would also be charged with FelonyMurder for the murder of Damon Boone. In fact, it's amazing Shades even was granted bail in the first place, as there are multiple witnesses who would have seen him holding the hostages and he came at a police officer and a civilian while armed with a gun, which is two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (It's implied that a judge may have been paid off, seeing as Shades and Mariah pay off another judge in order to get Arturo Rey bailed out)
** In real life, Misty would probably be forced to recuse herself from the case once Luke became a suspect/person of interest in the Cottonmouth crimes. Her one-night stand with him generates a conflict of interest.
** Luke's backstory plays fast and loose with human research ethics (which have been codified into law since WWII). FDA regulations explicitly forbid the use of prisoners in research providing no direct benefit, except in very specific cases (most of which require that the research have no or minimal risk). They also forbid using reduced sentencing as an incentive toward consent--that's textbook coercion. That said, it is established that Seagate is a very corrupt prison, so they may be fully aware that they are breaking the law.
** The NYPD doesn't have a 29th Precinct. The 29th Precinct is a fictional establishment created because the NYPD requires films and TV shows to use fictional precinct numbers to tell film cars apart from in-service patrol cars. The 29th happens to fall within the numbers of the actual police precincts for Harlem: the 23rd, 25th, 28th, 30th, and 32nd.
** Misty mocks Shades for dismissing his lawyer [[spoiler:halfway through his confession, causing him to be unaware of the terms of his deal. But his lawyer would have had to make the terms of the deal clear to him ''before'' he decided to take it and make his confession, not after]]. Unlike real property or the hearsay rule, legal ethics is fairly straightforward.
* ''Series/IronFist2017'':
** A minor case, but when the DEA SWAT team raids Colleen's dojo on the "tip" from Harold's frameup, they kick in the door without first shouting "Police! Open the door!" Part of the reason the police do that is... pretty much to avoid this ''exact'' situation; there ''is'' a significant percentage of civilians with combat training, many of which live in high-crime neighborhoods ''just like Colleen's'' where having their homes invaded by violent criminals is a ''very real possibility.'' Sure, Colleen and Danny only gave them two seconds, but that's more than enough time to then shout the two words law enforcement are legally ''required'' to the ''instant'' a raid begins and ''before'' shots are fired so as to avoid entrapment -- so that suspects know that the invaders are ''not'' criminals and they'll be in trouble if they fight back. [[spoiler:This probably helps with Danny's WrongfulAccusationInsurance at the end of the episode -- though, too, the "[[ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney generous contribution to the DEA Widows and Children's Fund]]" was probably a lot more effective]]. The only legal exception is if they have reason to believe the suspects will destroy evidence upon hearing the police are at the door, and they need a special "no-knock" warrant to not announce their presence.
** The board of directors cannot simply "oust" Danny, Ward, and Joy from the company, as they're the majority shareholders. For them to even ''be'' directors requires Danny's approval.
** The chemical plant lawsuit that affects Rand Enterprises midway through season 1, wherein Rand is being sued by some Staten Island residents who claim to have come down with cancer as a result of chemicals being manufactured at the plant. The plaintiffs' case doesn't have a leg to stand on. There’s no proof that the chemical plant causes cancer. As Joy points out, Rand Enterprises have met all legal and environmental requirements, so they’re not really in the wrong. The issue would be with the lawmakers. Even if there is a correlation between the chemical plant and the cancer cases, it doesn’t necessarily prove causation. But then the plaintiffs' lawyer rather stupidly decides to have one of his clients try to coerce an admission of guilt from Danny, while he films it for blackmail purposes. The Meachums and the board are worried about it, when in reality it would be a slam-dunk for Rand Enterprises. The video wouldn’t stand up in court and this lawyer would be very lucky if he only got disbarred (because blackmail is illegal).
----
!!Comic Books
* 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).
* 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).
* 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 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]].
** 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.
!!Films
* In ''Film/Daredevil2003'', the only scene of hero Matt Murdock actually acting as a lawyer that made it to the theatrical cut was of him seemingly seeking a conviction for a rape suspect. The catch? Matt is a defense attorney, a fact emphasized by the voluminous material that was cut from the movie. So while, in RealLife, you MAY see a victim's advocate making submissions at sentencing in many jurisdictions, there's no way in hell that Murdock would have been making arguments in court and getting annoyed that the defendant was acquitted. Matt ''could'' have been suing the guy in tort for the rape, but even in that case he ''still'' wouldn't be on the defense side of things. The comics' Daredevil is always a defense attorney--perhaps they didn't think that would be sympathetic enough?
* ''Film/{{The Incredible Hulk|2008}}'':
** General Ross decides that undergoing a government-funded medical procedure makes the person who did so the property of the government. This would probably be considered slavery under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
** Ross justifies his hunt for Banner by declaring him to be responsible for the deaths and destruction caused by Hulk's initial rampages (something he might have a good case for). This provides a legal justification for tracking down and apprehending the fugitive doctor. Unfortunately, it also makes it blatantly illegal for Ross himself to be part of that manhunt. The Posse Comitatus Act severely restricts (and in most cases, outright prohibits) the use of military personnel in law enforcement roles. This would also make all the resources that Ross uses in the manhunt a criminal misappropriation of Army property and funds.
** After finding evidence that Banner is in Brazil, Ross blatantly ignores the fact that they have had an extradition treaty with the US in place for over forty years and sends in commandos to retrieve him instead of going through the established channels to have Banner arrested and shipped home. This would cause a major international incident that could be considered an act of war. When General Ross reappears in ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar,'' he has somehow managed to become the United States Secretary of State, and his past crimes are never mentioned.
* ''Film/SpiderManHomecoming'': The inciting incident where the U.S. government takes over the salvage operations from a local contractor would not typically result in the ruination of Adrian Toomes, the local contractor. Early termination is a standard part of contracts that specifies who owes whom what in the event one party or another wishes to terminate the contract. In this case the Feds would force the City of New York to terminate their salvage operations, activating the early termination clauses with the contractors. This is typically a large payout that covers the cost of purchasing or leasing equipment and hiring employees (two items that Toomes explicitly mentions). Operating without protection from early termination is [[TooDumbToLive incredibly risky]] and unlikely to be undertaken by any sort of established businessman. In fact, Damage Control voiding Toomes' legal city contract without compensating him is highly illegal. In any situation like this, the government has a duty to compensate businesses for what is [[https://www.condemnation-law.com/blog/just-compensation-in-eminent-domain/ essentially seizure of eminent domain]], and given the stakes involved, a salvage company operating on a city contract ''in New York City'' (''the'' most contested real-estate market in the ''world''), Toomes had more than enough to sue for a big fat check from the government. In addition, contract terminations of this sort generally require some sort of official process, which would by rights result in Toomes being informed that the awarding of the salvage contract to Damage Control was being challenged and granting him a hearing in which he could defend his company's suitability to handle the job before it was taken away.
* ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar'': In real life, the Sokovia Accords could only apply to the American Avengers if constitutional law doesn't exist. The Accords apparently grants the United Nations the authority to arrest American citizens while violating their constitutional rights to due process, an attorney, and trial by jury. This doesn't make sense, since the Accords are a treaty that would have no legal impact on United States citizens unless Congress passed a law to fully ratify it. Even if Congress passed such a law (which is a big ''if'', given the hyperpartisan nature of US politics), it would likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court for violating the (aforementioned) legal rights of American citizens protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (at least). That's a small sampling of the [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2016/05/10/why-the-sokovia-accords-are-unconstitutional/ problems]] with the Accords.
!!Live-Action TV
!!!The following have their own pages:
[[index]]
* HollywoodLaw/Daredevil2015
[[/index]]
----
* ''Series/JessicaJones2015'':
** When Jessica Jones is collecting people who've been mind-controlled by Kilgrave in order to have them testify in Hope's trial:
*** They put them all together in a support group (thereby weakening all their stories because they've had time to be influenced by each other), rather than interview each person separately.
*** They don't think about subpoenaing the restaurant staff from the first few episodes. You know, the staff that have very little reason to lie and can positively say "that woman right there walked in with a creepy British guy who made us do things we didn't want to do." Nope, just go out and get a bunch of random people who at best can only testify that someone exists who can force you to do stuff (no proof that Hope was under his influence) and are far less believable, because at this point they're all mentally unstable or have good reasons for wanting to excuse their actions by lying about someone else making them do it.
** Their plan is to kidnap Kilgrave, hold him prisoner, torture him into confessing, and then use that as proof. The only time that's going to be admitted as evidence is when they all get charged with kidnapping and torture. It'll be great for a trial... Hogarth's, Trish's, and Jessica's trials. Kilgrave's? Not so much (and that's assuming he wouldn't just command the guards to release him when arrested). It's such a bad idea that Jeri tells them it would never work, and instead, they use their crime to draw a police officer to the scene and make him watch. This is also a bad idea, since he would then be obliged to arrest them, and they ''still'' can't use this against Kilgrave legally.
** Towards the end of the first season, [[spoiler:Jeri Hogarth's secretary/mistress Pam kills Hogarth's wife Wendy to save Jeri, after Kilgrave commanded Wendy to kill her]]. Afterwards, Jeri attempts to serve as Pam's counsel during her questioning by the police; given her relationship to both people and also as another victim in the case, there's a conflict of interest present. On the other hand, Jeri may have just been doing "stand-in defense" for both herself and Pam (since they're both, at minimum, persons of interest, if not suspects/witnesses) and just handling things until she can get another attorney to come down and start taking full charge of the defense; in other words, Jeri just wanted to be there to make sure Pam didn't say anything incriminating before she could arrange real, ethical, legal representation for them both and start handling the case.
** It turns out in season 2 that Hogarth Chao & Benowitz requires their attorneys to sign a “medical disclosure” clause to inform the firm of medical conditions that have the potential to affect job performance. Once Jeri’s partners learn she has ALS, they try to force her out of the law firm with a severance under the pretense it is their fiduciary duty to protect the law firm. [[http://thelegalgeeks.com/2018/03/17/did-the-hogarth-chao-benowitz-llp-employment-contract-violate-the-law/ One blog]] points out that there's a small problem with this “medical disclosure” clause designed to terminate lawyers: it is illegal.
*** New York law, specifically N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, states that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to discharge anyone from their employment because of disability or predisposing genetic characteristics. Forcing employees as a condition of employment to disclose health information that can then be a pretext to fire anyone goes to the heart of protecting anyone with a “disability” from being discriminated against. There was no effort to make any reasonable accommodations for Hogarth, just remove her from the firm.
*** There was no evidence that Jeri Hogarth was no longer competent to practice law. She did not have any symptoms at the time her partners confronted her. Their plan was to dismiss her from the firm, which is discriminatory conduct based on someone’s disability. As such, the contractual requirement to disclose medical conditions required the disclosure of health information that would otherwise be protected, and used as a license to discriminate against those with medical conditions. [[LampshadeHanging It's no wonder why in his one-scene cameo, Foggy called bullshit on the medical clause]], because this in his eyes would be no different from someone firing Matt from a law firm on the grounds that his blindness rendered him incompetent from practicing law.
*** The irony is, there ''are'' valid reasons to terminate Jeri Hogarth. She has committed jury tampering, which is grounds for disbarment; asking Jessica to rough up Wendy as inducement to sign a divorce agreement was a crime; having an affair with her secretary Pam, which while not a crime was an HR nightmare waiting to happen, and they had to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit from Pam; attempting to use Kilgrave to secure Wendy’s signature on divorce papers resulted in Wendy’s death; her illegal purchase of a handgun from Turk Barrett to later use in a homicide (making Jeri guilty of murder by proxy); her ruining Kith's marriage and driving Peter to suicide (in season 3); and it's up for debate whether her entertaining with HookersAndBlow was illegal.
*** Throw in the fact that Jeri’s practice includes criminal defense (cases like Jessica, her mother, Hope, etc, plus a lot of Foggy and Marci's cases), patent litigation, and estates (her work with Danny Rand), [[OmnidisciplinaryLawyer which are all highly specialized practice areas]]. This is like a doctor who is an orthodontist, vascular surgeon, and pediatrician. Sure, it is possible, just highly unlikely. Moreover, Jeri’s malpractice insurance has to be expensive.
*** But instead of going after Jeri for any of her serious ethical breaches as grounds for termination, Chao and Benowitz picked discrimination against someone with a disability as their beach to die on. Not the best legal strategy.
** Jessica Jones in season 3 appears to be susceptible to “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.” This doesn’t extend to people who aren't in law enforcement or work for them, and definitely not “anonymous tips.” The pictures and the claimed connection would be more than enough for a warrant to search Sallinger’s apartment.
** Trish Walker's downfall at the end of season 3 sees her snap, kill three serial murderers (including Sallinger), and then get brought in by Jessica. She is then sent off to the Raft, established in ''Captain America: Civil War'' to be this submarine prison for enhanced individuals. There are several problems with this:
*** First off, Costa says the people on the Raft “pulled jurisdiction” on Trish. They never make clear what that means. Yet the Raft, at least as established in ''Captain America: Civil War'', seemed to be created ad hoc for the Sokovia Accords. International agreements like the Sokovia Accords do not override the U.S. Constitution, especially agreements that weren’t even ratified by the United States, so there's no explanation as to how they could possibly get jurisdiction over Trish when all her crimes are state crimes in New York State.[[note]]On the other hand, it's possible that maybe it just means Trish falls under federal scrutiny, since ''Film/AntManAndTheWasp'' showed Scott and co. having an FBI agent who monitored them[[/note]]
*** More problematic is the implication is that Trish wouldn’t even get a trial. Which is ''terrible''. Costa says that due process doesn’t apply to supers, which is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment (the right to a trial and due process), as well as the Eighth Amendment (which holds that the punishment must be proportional to the crime). It’s actually a double whammy there: first, it's hard to imagine how ''an underwater prison'' is a proportional punishment even to Trish’s (numerous) crimes; second, it’s explicitly stated that she’s being treated differently because she’s enhanced. This is a ''status crime'' (where you’re punished just for being who you are) which, surprise surprise, is unconstitutional in the United States (and also violates international laws).
* ''Series/LukeCage2016'':
*** Every time a suspect asks for a lawyer, the interrogator continues asking questions, hoping to pressure the suspect into talking. Even Inspector Ridley, who is characterized by her belief in following the system, does so. In reality, the police ''must'' end an interrogation the moment a suspect asks for legal counsel, and can only resume once a lawyer has arrived. [[LoopholeAbuse While there ARE instances where cops try to skirt around this]], they usually try to do so by changing the subject or asserting that their past or present questions weren't part of any "official" interrogation, not by simply ''ignoring'' the request as seen in this show. If they do, and it's recorded, anything they get after this isn't usable in court.
*** Only once has this actually played realistically. In the second episode of season 2, Misty lets herself into the interrogation room to question Arturo Rey, after he's already lawyered up. After Donovan shows up to bail out Arturo Rey, Ridenhour calls Misty out on this.
** After the Candace interrogation in "Blowin' Up the Spot", Mariah leaves, telling Misty, "You know what, I'm not under arrest, and I change my mind: you wanna talk to me, you call my lawyer." The statement "contact me through my lawyer" does NOT apply to police officers, meaning the cops could still call Mariah back for questioning if they had any reason to without having to go through her lawyers. "Contact me through my lawyer" only applies to other lawyers, as they have ethical rules stating, for instance, that a lawyer may not contact an opponent who has retained their own counsel (to stop a lawyer browbeating the other side into confessing, or in a civil case, stop them from coercing concessions etc. from them).
** [[BailEqualsFreedom Shades making bail]] is treated as if he skated on all criminal charges he was facing. Posting bail is not the same thing as "cleared of all charges." Bail is a guarantee of a later appearance in court. If you don't appear, it means you'll be tracked down and arrested, then put in jail until your trial, plus faced with a bail-jumping charge too. Furthermore, people on bail tend to be subject to various other restrictions on what activities they can engage in, meaning Misty would've had grounds to rearrest Shades when she, Luke and Claire caught him and Mariah at Pops' barbershop.
** During Shades' interrogation, Inspector Ridley says that as a participant in Diamondback's hostage situation, Shades is facing multiple kidnapping with a weapon charges. In real life, as one hostage was killed during the course of the hostage situation, he (and every other participant) would also be charged with FelonyMurder for the murder of Damon Boone. In fact, it's amazing Shades even was granted bail in the first place, as there are multiple witnesses who would have seen him holding the hostages and he came at a police officer and a civilian while armed with a gun, which is two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (It's implied that a judge may have been paid off, seeing as Shades and Mariah pay off another judge in order to get Arturo Rey bailed out)
** In real life, Misty would probably be forced to recuse herself from the case once Luke became a suspect/person of interest in the Cottonmouth crimes. Her one-night stand with him generates a conflict of interest.
** Luke's backstory plays fast and loose with human research ethics (which have been codified into law since WWII). FDA regulations explicitly forbid the use of prisoners in research providing no direct benefit, except in very specific cases (most of which require that the research have no or minimal risk). They also forbid using reduced sentencing as an incentive toward consent--that's textbook coercion. That said, it is established that Seagate is a very corrupt prison, so they may be fully aware that they are breaking the law.
** The NYPD doesn't have a 29th Precinct. The 29th Precinct is a fictional establishment created because the NYPD requires films and TV shows to use fictional precinct numbers to tell film cars apart from in-service patrol cars. The 29th happens to fall within the numbers of the actual police precincts for Harlem: the 23rd, 25th, 28th, 30th, and 32nd.
** Misty mocks Shades for dismissing his lawyer [[spoiler:halfway through his confession, causing him to be unaware of the terms of his deal. But his lawyer would have had to make the terms of the deal clear to him ''before'' he decided to take it and make his confession, not after]]. Unlike real property or the hearsay rule, legal ethics is fairly straightforward.
* ''Series/IronFist2017'':
** A minor case, but when the DEA SWAT team raids Colleen's dojo on the "tip" from Harold's frameup, they kick in the door without first shouting "Police! Open the door!" Part of the reason the police do that is... pretty much to avoid this ''exact'' situation; there ''is'' a significant percentage of civilians with combat training, many of which live in high-crime neighborhoods ''just like Colleen's'' where having their homes invaded by violent criminals is a ''very real possibility.'' Sure, Colleen and Danny only gave them two seconds, but that's more than enough time to then shout the two words law enforcement are legally ''required'' to the ''instant'' a raid begins and ''before'' shots are fired so as to avoid entrapment -- so that suspects know that the invaders are ''not'' criminals and they'll be in trouble if they fight back. [[spoiler:This probably helps with Danny's WrongfulAccusationInsurance at the end of the episode -- though, too, the "[[ScrewTheRulesIHaveMoney generous contribution to the DEA Widows and Children's Fund]]" was probably a lot more effective]]. The only legal exception is if they have reason to believe the suspects will destroy evidence upon hearing the police are at the door, and they need a special "no-knock" warrant to not announce their presence.
** The board of directors cannot simply "oust" Danny, Ward, and Joy from the company, as they're the majority shareholders. For them to even ''be'' directors requires Danny's approval.
** The chemical plant lawsuit that affects Rand Enterprises midway through season 1, wherein Rand is being sued by some Staten Island residents who claim to have come down with cancer as a result of chemicals being manufactured at the plant. The plaintiffs' case doesn't have a leg to stand on. There’s no proof that the chemical plant causes cancer. As Joy points out, Rand Enterprises have met all legal and environmental requirements, so they’re not really in the wrong. The issue would be with the lawmakers. Even if there is a correlation between the chemical plant and the cancer cases, it doesn’t necessarily prove causation. But then the plaintiffs' lawyer rather stupidly decides to have one of his clients try to coerce an admission of guilt from Danny, while he films it for blackmail purposes. The Meachums and the board are worried about it, when in reality it would be a slam-dunk for Rand Enterprises. The video wouldn’t stand up in court and this lawyer would be very lucky if he only got disbarred (because blackmail is illegal).
----
