I've been meaning to give my own thoughts on Daredevil legal stuff (I think I gave a few thoughts as I went along), but I'm glad to see they gave it some attention as well. Anyway, here are my comments on their comments.
1. Yes, setting up a murder of someone rather than an arrest is blatantly illegal. I'm doubtful this needed analysis
The prosecutor should not be involved in the investigation, but they often are, especially in large jurisdictions. Doing so could get them in trouble, but it happens.2. The whole Delaware thing was convoluted and insulting to Public Defenders. I appreciate they acknowledge that New York doesn't have the death penalty (unlike Law and Order). It's worth acknowledging that Delaware is one of three states where the Judge technically determines the death penalty. In addition, states like Virginia do require the judge to determine whether to impose death if the defendant pleads guilty.
3. Spot on here.
4. I agree, with the caveat of possible confidential information. Obviously, Castle can waive any current conflict. I wonder what happens with subsequent conflicts when the prior client is death? I think this is mostly right, though.
5. We all agree the show got it right.
Part 2:
1. I like to think the trial timeline is partly explained by collusion between the DA and Judge. Even then, it's still highly implausible. Does New York criminal procedure allow deposition of witnesses? If so, that's awesome. But I agree the defense has the ability to drag things out a bit through motions even if they can't depose witnesses. I also doubt discovery rules even allow setting trial in a week because I'd imagine discovery has to be turned over earlier.
2. I hadn't even noticed the signs in the courtroom, but I don't disagree with this.
3. An objection was absolutely necessary here. I did appreciate the offer of proof with testimony outside the presence of the jury, but I think everything else is pretty much wrong in the show here too.
4. Sure.
5. Yep, especially the latter.
6. I think this is a bit of a stretch. I think Karen was doing was more giving moral support than legal support. I think they're technically right, but it feels more nitpicking.
7. Yeah, Matt's whole thing was painful.
I think they also left out the complete confusion regarding the timeline after. Did they skip ahead, was there a pre-sentence investigation and a sentencing hearing not seen on screen? The whole thing here was confusing.
It's all unfortunate because Season one, while not perfect, was at least solid. This one was bad in many ways.
