Agree that the courtroom scenes are often gripping, but I do wonder on what planet any judge would allow the defendant's attorney to be called to the stand as a witness for the prosecution? Highly improbable, and likely grounds for a big fat mistrial.
I wish we had Ben's posts from the VN board. As a lawyer, he gave a very thorough assessment. I'm sure you're right about the part you mention (which I haven't viewed yet).
Not that I don't like 1840, I do - just think it gets messy from here on out. But the witchcraft trial is ludicrous, not just for the reason above. Also in the sense that it takes place in the middle of the nineteenth century. That just strains credulity. Even the trial of Victoria Winters for sorcery in 1795 is several decades later than any American witchcraft trials of which I'm aware.
You're right, of course. I don't think there were many -- or possibly any -- witch trials in America after Salem in 1692. Though DS
did deal with that very point not long ago in 1840 -- various characters expressing incredulity that anyone could believe in witches in the 19th century; the legal technicalities wherein the original colonial law could still be invoked, etc. I thought they did a decent job in making the 1840 witch trial
theoretically possible if not wholly believable -- but the "believable" part is part and parcel of DS's premises as a whole: witches, vampires, werewolves ...
I don't recall 1795 making any similar attempt to explain Victoria's trial for witchcraft 100 years after witch trials had ended. I know there were a few witch trials in Europe -- Germany, I think -- some years later than Salem.