Surprising Legal Facts You Never Knew
- Did you know that the first murder trial in the American Colonies took place in 1630? The case involved a man named Daniel Manchester, who was charged with killing a Native American. Despite being found guilty, Manchester wasn’t executed. The colonies were a young settlement, and chief justice George Cleeve decided that there weren’t enough good reasons to hang a man for killing a native who would doubtlessly "come to do us all harm."
- The longest criminal trial in U.S. history lasted 47 years. Beginning in 1808, Sam Smiler was found as a possible suspect for the victims of the murder of a local tavern keeper. Over the course of his life, he was imprisoned, released, re-imprisoned, released, and then when finally set free for good, he passed away 18 days later in his home.
- In 1847, an 18-year old woman by the name of Margaret Morgan was charged with the murder of her husband. This was hardly special; many women murdered their husbands and lovers in those days . But Morgan was a "free colored" woman—one of the very few women of color of the day who had gained their freedom and wealth. Her "racist" judge sentenced her to death by hanging in spite of her pleas, even though he was otherwise known as a liberal politician who advocated for the rights of slaves.
- One of the earliest examples of interest rates appears in the code of Hammurabi, Babylon, which dates back to the time period of 1792-1750 BC. Interest rates-also known as usury-usually have a large cap on how much can be charged. Most countries in today’s world, including the United States, have interest rate laws that are similar to the code of Hammurabi.
- Statutes of limitations are laws restricting the time period within which a party may file a legal complaint. This legal concept finds its roots in English common law, which explains why many people are surprised to learn that there is no statute of limitations for federal murder charges.
Notable Cases Trivia
Some of the most famous legal cases in history have captivated the public’s imagination while advancing our legal system. Here are a few examples:
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – A landmark Supreme Court decision that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. This ruling helped to pave the way for the Civil Rights Movement and the end of segregation in many areas of American public life.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) – A Supreme Court decision that established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Court to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional. This case set the stage for the power of the judicial branch as a check on the powers of the legislative and executive branches.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – A Supreme Court case that held that individuals taken into police custody must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination before being interrogated. This decision led to the practice of "Miranda rights" being read to people when they are taken into custody, informing them of their legal rights.
Roe v. Wade (1973) – A controversial Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide, establishing a woman’s right to seek an abortion without excessive government restriction. This case remains a focal point for the abortion debate in the U.S.
United States v. Nixon (1974) – A Supreme Court decision that limited the power of all U.S. presidents by affirming that the president is not above the law. The case resulted in President Nixon’s release of tapes that implicated him in the Watergate scandal, which led to his resignation.
These landmark cases offer just a glimpse into the fascinating history of legal decisions that have shaped our society and continue to influence how we understand and interpret the law today.
Strange and Outdated Laws
A number of laws once thought to be banned or made illegal are still enforced today. How many of these trivia questions do you know the answers to?
If you are a resident of Alabama, be forewarned. It is illegal to put salt on railway tracks. Is it because the state is worried an illegal train will sneak through their borders to carry Southern Secrets to Northern Neighbors? Nope. It stems from the Civil War when the state had no military, it wanted to keep its railroads safe and thus enacted a law to prohibit putting salt on the railroad tracks to keep from rusting.
If you are a resident of South Carolina, be sure not to give anyone a peach. According to Section 16-15-260 of the state code, if you "offer to sell, barter, furnish, give away or deliver to a law enforcement officer in the plain view of such officer any peach, peach stone, or pit, such action is ‘conspiracy to injure oranges.’" According to this section, oranges are considered "the most lucrative, popular and profitable fruit business known to mankind." Since South Carolina was perhaps once known for its oranges and not peaches, this law is likely in place to protect the orange crop rather than the peach crop.
If you are a resident of Lafayette, Louisiana, don’t perform an oral sex act. That is, at least on a person of the opposite gender. In 1928, the town added an ordinance to the books making it illegal for citizens to get caught having "oral sex." The ordinance specified that this law did not apply to "persons of the same gender with respect to each other." In other words, "oral sex" was perfectly legal among same-sex persons. No one is really sure how the ordinance has managed to stay intact through the years.
If you are a resident of Kansas City, Missouri, don’t give anyone a yard of any length. An ordinance in the city set during the Reconstruction Era of the 1870’s forbade citizens from giving yard lengths of any kind to anyone. That’s right. It is illegal to give any type of measurement in the city unless you round down to the nearest foot. A newspaper in 2010 claimed that it was a "perfectly good law." Officials confirm that the ordinance may still be enforced if citizens are reported.
If you are in San Francisco, you shouldn’t place a sneeze on a sidewalk – unless you wish to pay a $500 fine. Why the $500 fine for sneezing? We’re not sure, but since the ordinance was passed in 1905, times have changed. Sneeze flu is no longer a major issue like it once was.
Legal System Myths
Often the worst cases of guilty people are freed and exonerated. This myth is not fact. A conviction requires unanimous agreement that all of the jurors believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But that doesn’t mean that all of those jurors agree on all of the facts of the case or the defendant’s guilt. It only means that all of the jurors agree that the prosecution has presented enough evidence for them to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty. For this reason, most exonerations at the appellate level have been done through post conviction action – meaning that another group of jurors, looking at the evidence, believe that the defendant was convicted in error.
The constitutional right to counsel eliminates the need for a lawyer when dealing with police or investigators. This is false – you have the right to counsel at all critical stages of the case. Courts have said that the purpose of the right to counsel is to prevent police coercion and to ensure fair trials. Most courts have said that identifying yourself to police (your name, address, etc.) is not a critical stage, so the police don’t need to allow you a lawyer during questioning. However, if you ask for a lawyer, you have exercised the right to counsel, and they must stop asking you questions. If you don’t ask for a lawyer, courts could say that you did not request counsel. The best way to enforce your right to counsel is to ask for a lawyer.
It is a fair justification to stop the police from obtaining confession or statements by taking a case to trial. This is false – if there is evidence of guilt and it goes to trial, a jury will be able to make a determination of guilt -given this particular evidence. Some evidence may be considered tainted or inadmissible, but when it is viewed outside the context of an evidentiary hearing, a jury will be able to overlook the tainted evidence and just view the demeanor of the witnesses. If there were other witnesses who saw the event, it will be hard to convince a jury that those witnesses are lying. So while confession or statements are generally not admissible in court, the defense cannot usually stop their admission and still take the case to trial.
If you plead guilty you are admitting guilt. This is false – pleading guilty is a legal maneuver allowing you the opportunity to accept punishment, to move on with your life and to save your future. The plea may be with the intention of pleading a lesser included offense, obtaining a lighter sentence, streamlining your case or removing emotion from the situation. It is just a way of ending the case – one that can be very beneficial to all involved.
Humorous Legal Trivia Quiz
Do you think you know your stuff? Test your legal knowledge with our fun, quickfire quiz. No googling or reference checking – all answers below the questions.
- What is the primary UK legislation governing the rights of tenants and landlords?
- What is the "Majority Rule" in company law?
- The term "nuisance" refers to which area of law?
- What is the purpose of the Court of Appeal?
- Which section of the UK Companies Act 2006 covers directors’ duties?
- Who is responsible for education law in England?
- What is the Criminal Procedure Rules?
- When were employment rights for those employed before 1976 introduced?
- What does MIP stand for in the context of career planning?
- What is the The Legal Practice Course (LPC) or the Bar Practice Course (BPC)?
Answers
- The Housing Act 1988
- Section 281 of the Insolvency Act 1986
- Environmental Nuisance , Copyright Nuisance and Private Nuisances
- To hear appeals from inferior courts
- Section 170
- The Secretary of state for Education and the Home Secretary
- The rules regulating civil and criminal procedure
- 1 May 1976
- Management Information Pack
- Diploma in Law
Fact vs. Fiction: Law in Film
Hollywood lawyer movies are a staple of cinema entertainment. But how often do audiences actually get a true to life depiction of real trials and court proceedings? Many of us can recognize the familiar courtroom tropes. The young defendant trembling before the judge. The angry prosecutor lobbing angry accusations and jabs at the defense. And of course, the win-at-all-costs lawyer who "solves" the case just in the nick of time. These common tropes often combine to make for great theater – and have left audiences with some notable unrealistic perceptions of trial law.
Many times, courtroom scenes in movies rely on pre-rehearsed or pre-formulated scripts, as attorneys attempt to portray emotions or arc-laden storms of evolution in the story. The problem is that truly random and unrehearsed acts on the part of a witness – especially an emotional act – rarely translates to a scripted scene, even if the essence is true.
For example, in The Devil’s Advocate (1997), Al Pacino portrays an attorney who has convinced a high school sex offender to hire him to appeal his conviction. The scene in which the lawyer incites the client to appear in the courtroom with him, a "trial by fire," is much more dramatic than any we could expect in reality. The scene sees Al Pacino (as Kevin) ramp up the level of intensity of the attacker’s speech when he tells the defendant that he’s about to find out what it’s really like in a "real court." He brazenly corrects him when he points his finger and says that nobody calls then a "freaking pervert." Then the defense prep coach declares, "You’re a fucking pervert!" Pacino goes on to enigmatically turn to the gallery and tell the crowd that they are all "fucking perverts." This dramatic moment soars past the level of what is permissible in a realistic courtroom scene.
The scene tends to elicit a sense of mob justice, inciting the jury and the gallery to override their natural inclinations of morality regarding the perpetrator’s guilt. As anyone involved in the criminal justice field will tell you, the only people yelling "guilty" – and those who are willing to physically engage themselves in the sentence – are the guards.
Movies often alter the footage in order to create more vivid tension, and the tone of the footage can heighten this tension. When the criminals are first introduced to the audience, they are shunned by most of the characters, who abandon them or cast them out of their lives – these include parents, relatives, and even people they have trusted. Because of the intense emotions involved, most real-life courtroom dramas do not see anything near this level of alienation in the people they affect.
In addition to dramatizing the realities of criminal trials, many dramatic courtroom scenes go so far as to alter the course of justice itself, a trope that can be particularly harmful to the image of the real thing. Pink Panther 2 (2009) offers a great example of this, when the titular character, given life by Steve Martin, professes to have a perfect record of winning court cases while in court at the request of a local travel guide. The lawyers viciously insult each other, lobbing criticisms like "slut," "whore," and "mother fucker." Then, for an added touch, he calls his opposing counsel to the stand as an expert witness in cultural appropriation. In reality, such behavior would see either (a) a mistrial or (b) criminal contempt of court charges. In fact, most courts maintain very strict limits on what lawyers may and may not say to opposing counsel – let alone witnesses and suspects.
And although a good film strives to maintain some sense of the reality, certain things are simply too entertaining to resist. When Al Pacino cheated the judge in The Devil’s Advocate, it effectively violated the casual dignity expected in court proceedings. While it does bolster the story being told, it also convinces spectators that if it’s okay in a film, that it is acceptable in real life.
To be sure, some courtroom depictions and legal storylines are based on or inspired by actual trials, history, or real-life scenarios. Most of these are fictionalized for the sake of dramatization – after all, some stories are just too good to be true! So what is a legal-minded movie lover to do?
Celebrity Lawsuits That Made the News
From murder to financial fraud, celebrities have rightfully and wrongfully faced the law in nearly all the ways the rest of us have and often in a bigger, bolder more scandalous way. Yet the celebrity aspect of these cases also means that often they can rise up to be some of the most prominent, well-known and altogether pop culture embraced examples of legal issues in the U. S. and abroad.
Marcia Clark, the prosecutor for the infamous O.J. Simpson trial, is known for saying; "My law degree should be a license to tell the truth, but my real specialty is in telling the story." In this popular quote, Clark emphasizes how she and her colleagues specialized in not only prosecuting the crimes of high profile celebrities, but also in leveraging the public perceptions of it to fit media expectations. This was a challenge particularly with the tendencies in America to see celebrities as above the law or too good to be true.
Even if the crimes are serious, such as murder, the women involved (Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman), might be depicted as wanting attention or not worthy of blame for the actor’s bad choices, as was the case after this infamous Bronco Chase and O.J.’s arrest for murder. The most watched television legal trial to date in history was also one of the longest when counting from the murder to the trial to the aftershocks of the infamous O.J. Simpson trial. Of the total 138 million viewers of the final verdict in the O.J. Simpson criminal case, the trial itself garnered about 95 million, and Drama Productions produced and broadcasted the most extensive media coverage through more than 117 episodes over the course of two years (from November of 1994 to November of 1996) . The Oliver Stone TV film series "The People vs. O.J. Simpson" and the Lifetime mini-series "Murder Made Me Famous" are just two more examples of how often highly sensationalized crime can be turned into sensationalized art.
While these two court cases have become almost household names internationally, because of their large public platforms, they are by no means rare. Celebrities like Lindsay Lohan and Justin Bieber have each had multiple court cases that made pop culture and media headlines. However, their more unusual court cases have also captured the attention of the public and media. For example, Lindsay Lohan was charged most recently in 2013 with reckless driving, a red light violation and lying to the police. The charges stemmed from a night club altercation where Lohan allegedly punched another woman. The trouble with the law often seems to seep into the personal lives of celebrities in a big way that often becomes highly exasperated as with the case of Justin Bieber, currently facing several legal charges like DUI, resisting arrest without violence, and having consumed under aged booze.
Criminal charges set aside, celebrities have also been charged with civil crimes and often litigate in issues hoping to restore their reputation as they turn their lives around. An example of this is the successful defamation case of Melanie Griffith, who settled $2.5 million just days after alleging that the producers of "The One and Only Ivan" didn’t give her publicists adequate notice about the film’s release. Another example is the successful defamation case of Hugh Grant against media mogul News Group Newspapers. Grant had made several accusations that News Group Newspapers were complicit in phone hacking.