Continuity mistake: When Nicole breaks the glowstick and splashes the liquid on the killer's mask, she starts to run. In the next shot of the killer, there is no liquid on the mask, yet it reappears in subsequent shots. (01:03:20)
Plot hole: *SPOILER* Toward the end of the movie, Ryan Gosling goes to Hopkins' house where Hopkins is tricked into not only confessing again, but giving Gosling the murder weapon, after they are back in court and Gosling is the acting prosecutor. This would be a conflict of interest due to the fact that Gosling is a witness.
Suggested correction: First, the gun that Beachum took from Crowford's house was not the murder weapon. It was Crowford's unfired gun. He only took it out of the fear of his life. Second, Beachum entered Crowford's house with police supervision. If he plays it by the book, Crowford's confession is valid. In that case, supervising officers will stand witness, along with a recording confirming their testimony. Third, Beachum doesn't need the confession anymore. He was amply clear on that matter.
You are on point for the corrections, but they involve just mostly context/details, don't they? The text of the entry should be polished a little, but the core issue is valid, I think; Beachum would never be the acting prosecutor in a case when he is the key witness as well. If it's a case for the "murder," he has to be on the stand for practically everything; even if we exclude him from the confession to the shooting, as you suggest (and even if it should never be litigated to begin with), he still is integral to the pulling the plug phase (he was literally there as it happened and did everything to prevent it). We can just assume that he will be forced to hand the prosecuting role over to someone else later, and he was just there for 5 minutes to gloat before the movie credits run, but it's kind of funny.
Beachum doesn't have to testify, neither for the confession part nor for the "pulling of the plug." I've already covered the former. For the latter, the fact that the woman is now dead is enough. If necessary, the attending doctors could testify that the woman "would have outlived all of them."
Beachum received the confession under "police supervision," as you called it, which still involved him being the only person in the house with the defendant. You mentioned a recording in the earlier comment; are we just to assume he took one, or is there a visual hint I missed? He was also the person who fought for the court order to the point of being physically tackled in front of the victim's deathbed—so doctors and security staff defiant of such an order would be on trial too, I suppose? Since, again, this 'murder' was not even committed by Crawford. So how would Beachum not be a crucial witness, often the only witness to cover that part of the story?
OK. You want to assume Crawford's confession was for the viewer's benefit entirely, and there was no wiretapping? Fine. The police have the gun now, hence proof of the first actus reus. Hospital staff tackled Beachum, but Crawford can't pin the murder on them when he has two counts of actus reus and twice demonstrated mens rea. Courts always hear such nonsense as "I didn't kill him; I shot him. The bullet and the fall killed him" (Collateral, 2006). Shooting someone is actus reus.
I am sure you are right on the Latin, especially since it's hard to imagine the trial going the way it went the first time around to begin with, and I am not getting into the rabbit hole of what exactly could legally be relitigated. But still and again, what does this have to do with the original point being made, that some other guy would be the one leading the trial, since Beachum would be realistically called in as a witness, even a hostile one? I mean, I honestly didn't think it would be much of a point of contention; it's just something there for the audience. I followed the lead about the 'witness' part the OP ended on, but seriously, a conflict of interest would be invoked just because of all the personal first-hand, hands-on involvement in the facts.
I explicitly told you what happens if the court struck the confession from the record. (The gun happens.) And yet, here you are, saying "Beachum would be realistically called in as a witness"! This correction is turning into a confrontation. Also, don't conflate "involvement" with "conflict of interest." The latter means someone has different de facto and de jure motives. Beachum always had one motive: to convict Crawford.
Far from me to be confrontational, and sorry if I came across that way. I guess I simply don't get it; it happens. Specifically, if I stated again the point about the witness, it wasn't because I was blindly disregarding what you said (check the words immediately after the ones you quoted), but it's pointless to delve further into something that goes beyond the original mistake. You just directly addressed the meaning of conflict of interest, which was what the OP talked about. I simply felt the initial correction posted was not doing that; now it does, and I am not disputing your knowledge on the topic, especially not having any of my own. Cheers.
Continuity mistake: In the scene when Dawn is sitting on the edge of the tub after her shower, her "purity ring" switches from her left hand to her right and then back to her left hand in between close up and wide angle shots. (00:40:25)
Deliberate mistake: So right before the containment team seal up the window with the tarp, the SWAT is shown having police dogs. The virus (which came from a dog in the first place) can be transferred through saliva. The SWAT obviously overlooked the fact that the potentially infected people who might escape could be bitten by the dogs.
Continuity mistake: The train that Carol takes from Washington to Baltimore is an Amtrak Acela Express train, as can be seen in the station and interior shots. The exterior shot of the train passing by shows a different type of Amtrak train.
Factual error: The license plate on the blue Ford Taurus is 674-H2T. Format for New Mexico standard issue yellow plates is 123-ABC (three numbers, the Zia sun, followed by three letters).
Continuity mistake: In the opening scene, the car's shadow changes with each shot from very long to very short.
Revealing mistake: At 39:55, actress Jaime King gets out of the shower, and she has just reached for her robe, and then on the bottom right corner of your screen you can see a bit of the flesh-colored body suit she's wearing. Continue to 40:00 where you see it again. Continue to 40:05-40:09 where you can see it, without slowing or stopping frame. (00:39:55)
Continuity mistake: When the three sisters are in the jacuzzi, Tess pours a glass of wine and hands it to Willa. The amount of wine in the glass increases in the cut between Tess picking up the glass and Willa receiving it.
Other mistake: In a scene when Deborah Martin takes a photo in the mirror the camera's position would'nt allow for the photo to be taken properly, as it does later on in the film.
Continuity mistake: When Andy Konsong discovers his brother's mutilated body in the bloody swimming pool, he vomits, then tries calling for help on his cellphone. As he makes his call, the gigantic crocodile lunges out of the pool and bites off Andy's arm, cellphone and all, above the elbow. Andy screams, staggers and lands on his back, but his only injury thus far is his severed right arm. His mouth is not bloody at all, nor should it be. The camera cuts to another angle as the crocodile lunges a second time; but, before it even enters the frame and bites into his legs, Andy's mouth is suddenly full of blood, his teeth are bloody, and blood is streaming down his chin, even though he has suffered no abdominal injuries.
Other mistake: The film's set in Seattle but was filmed in Canada. This is evidenced by things like a Canadian red striped postal box as well as cars with Canadian license plates.
Continuity mistake: While McGahan is leaving the trailer with the widow (after giving his speech on heaven and hell) he closes the door. The next shot of him outside, the door is now wide open.
Continuity mistake: Standing in the subway talking about what the creatures were, the blood from the infected tract wound from the heroin needles is completely gone, as well as the entire wound itself. (00:46:30)
Continuity mistake: The two protagonists are having a conversation at a long table. Michael Caine sends a bottle of wine rolling across the table. Jude Law opens it and pours. The bottle label now faces him. After Caine says the line "I've never heard of an Italian called Tindale", Milo hasn't moved but the bottle faces the camera now. There's another subtle change in angle and level of the liquid a bit later when Caine says that his wife would get the "Tindelini" last name. (00:09:20)
Visible crew/equipment: At the shootout in the trailer park near the end, the redneck neighbour comes out of his trailer and his shotgun jams. Immediately after, he is shot with a machine gun mounted in the back of a white Mustang. Right at the end of his expletive-filled final line, you can see the safety cable from the pulley that jerks him backward through the wall behind him. (01:19:55)