The Law Is A Ass #443: Daredevil Has To Prove He’s The Devil You Know

Bob Ingersoll

By day Bob Ingersoll was an attorney in the Cuyahoga County Public Defender Office, Appellate Division in Cleveland, Ohio, until he retired in 2009. But in the “Real World” he has also been a freelance writer since 1975, when he sold his first comic-book story to the late, lamented Charlton Comics. He’s still at it and, in addition to his long-running column “The Law Is a Ass” has sold stories to DC, Marvel, Innovation, Now Comics, Comico, Kitchen Sink and others; as well as co-authoring the novels Captain America: Liberty’s Torch and Star Trek: The Case of the Colonist’s Corpse. Bob is married with children, which is about as close to Al Bundy as he cares to get.

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Bob Ingersoll says:

    BTW, if you enjoyed this column, you’ll probably also like THE LAW IS a ASS: ALL RISE, a paperback book collection of my first 20 columns from back in 1983 and 1984. Now on sale.

  2. Tom A. says:

    I think the bigger problem is that after Slug’s gang burst in and shot up the courtroom and Slug tried to kill his lawyer, Daredevil’s testimony would simply no longer be necessary. They’ve got Slug dead to rights, there is already plenty of evidence against Slug. Even if Daredevil insisted on giving his redundant testimony anyway, appealing the case based solely on any problems caused by Daredevil’s testimony would be a waste of time and I doubt any judge would take it seriously since even if the evidence was considered inadmissable it wouldn’t matter, Slug would still be declared guilty and probably serve a maximum sentence.

    • Bob Imgersoll says:


      No, what happened in the courtroom wouldn’t count as evidence in Slug’s trial. He under indictment and on trial for specific crimes. What happened in the courtroom would be new crimes for which he would stand trial in a completely different trial after a new indictment.

      So DD’s testimony would still be necessary to convict Slug for the old crimes, the jury didn’t see happen. And because the jury did see the new crimes being committed, that’s why the judge needed to order a mistrial in the first trial.

  3. Michael says:

    Yep, as the judge, jurors and his lawyer would all be witnesses at that point.