Have you ever been watching a legal thriller and thought, “that can’t be right…”? If so, it’s probably because you were on to something: it’s not. Many legal dramas subvert the actual rules in the name of drama. Here are just a few of the many inaccurate representations of the criminal justice system in popular legal dramas.
- Judges are not allowed to file charges against anyone. Judges cannot preside over one court file with one defendant and order the prosecutor to issue charges on another individual, present in the courtroom or not. For example, the judge in Legally Blonde did not have the authority to order that Chutney be charged for the murder of her father and placed into custody at Ms. Windham’s trial. This would be extremely improper and based on the testimony that the prosecutor witnessed in the trial where Chutney essentially confesses to the murder, it would be up to the prosecutor to charge Chutney after the trial and/or have the police wait outside to place Chutney under arrest as she exits the courthouse doors.
This is because there are three key players in a criminal law trial: (1) the presiding judge, (2) the prosecutor, and (3) the defendant. The Judge is to be the neutral party who tells what the law is. The prosecutor has the power to file charges and to prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defendant has the right to defend the charges against them (e.g., to show that there is reasonable doubt), have counsel represent them, have a fair and speedy trial, and to testify in court. It is crucial for the proper functioning of a criminal case that the powers of each do not overlap, and so movies’ depiction of judges ordering charges is entirely incorrect. - Defendants do not have to wear “prison clothes” for their trials. Movies find this to be a dramatic flair for viewers, but this is considered to be extremely prejudicial to the defendant, especially if their trial is in front of a jury of their peers. It is always important to remember that the defendant has the right to a fair trial and is considered innocent until proven guilty. If those defendants that are in custody before trial were required to wear the clothing provided by the jails, it could make them look guilty until proven innocent, and could be considered a violation of their constitutional rights. Most defendants in custody have a choice of suits to wear for trial or their families bring in more professional attire for their trial.
- There is no such thing as a “surprise witness.” Although it looks cool on screen when the courtroom collectively gasps at a witness that no one knew about as the attorney who called them is smirking in victory, in a real criminal trial, witnesses for both sides (prosecution and defense) need to be disclosed before trial starts. In Minnesota, this is usually done on a Rule 9 disclosure document, which lists the witnesses’ names that may be called for trial. Attorneys cannot call a witness that the other side knows nothing about, and a judge would not let that person in a courtroom to testify if the witnesses were not properly disclosed to both sides and accounted for before the trial starts.
Of course, there are exceptions in extreme situations or a rebuttal to an expert witness, like Mona Lisa Vito’s testimony in My Cousin Vinny, but that is only in very rare instances. So, kudos to My Cousin Vinny, as this is a dramatic moment that could actually happen in a real courtroom.
All in all, a general rule, especially for legal dramas, is that you cannot believe everything you see on TV.