system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[DC/General Superhero] Is the evidence provided by superheroes against my client legal?

I just became a lawyer at an elite and high-pressure law firm. (My replacement left because of some specter thing. I wasn’t paying attention to his rambling because I was too stunned by the salary offer.)

Anyhow, my first client is Lex Luthor and I’m concerned by the evidence against him. The charges against him are that he was trying to manipulate time to wipe Clark Kent from existence.

First, a lot of evidence stems from using Wayne Industries technology. Bruce Wayne is on record publicly attacking Mr. Luthor on multiple occasions. 

Also, this ‘evidence’ is verified by a detective named John Jones. The problem is that I can’t find much evidence about this detective. It is like he just appeared on Earth a few years ago, because there is no proof that he existed before hand.

The prosecutors are claiming that they are going to bring in Superman as a witness to Luthor’s crimes. However, I’ve been given no evidence that explains how Superman knew Luthor was going to commit a crime. 

I can go on and on, but it seems like all the evidence that is being brought against my client either comes from a heavily biased source or simply can’t be confirmed by outside sources.

So, can any of this evidence actually be used in a court of law?
gpt
The evidence is absolutely *admissible*.  Admissible just means that the jury can be presented it.  Your job is to create doubt.  Just because Mr Wayne hates your client, that doesn’t mean the jury will be prevented from hearing his testimony.  You need to create doubt by your cross-examination of the witnesses, and by presenting your own evidence.

Source: am a lawyer.

Though as far as I’m aware, “manipulating time so that a person never existed” isn’t a crime.  You could argue it’s akin to murder, but as far as the rest of the world goes it’s basically voodoo jumbo jumbo that shouldn’t work.