It seems that we want to think of a world that is logical and populated with verifiable facts. However, the world of the lawyer is fundamentally illogical (as are most humans most of the time) and facts only exist when either agreed to by the parties or determined by judge or jury. As a result events that you or I would consider to be unquestionably true may end up being not facts. I have seen this in supreme court opinions, appeals, and bench (judge-not jury) cases.
Sony knows this well. They have tons of money to throw at lawyers. Generally speaking, the more money spent, the more likely you will win.
The word "justice" is never used in law school.
This observation that "legal logic" is not quite the same as traditional rational-thought logic has led to an interesting "legal reasoning" subfield of AI over the past decade or so (with some precursors dating back further) that tries to formalize exactly what logic it is following, and how it differs from traditional rationality. That area develops alternative logics, reasoning procedures, etc., in order to do things like simulate case outcomes, suggest possible arguments to make, evaluate alternative strategies, etc. Until relatively recently many people did think that the right way to make a legal reasoning system was to treat the law as logical rules, and the legal reasoning problem as a problem of rational inference over rules+evidence... which turns out not to be that accurate an account of how law actually operates.
I didn't know there were advancements in the AI field pertaining to that, I'll try to look them up, but would be very grateful if someone could point them out :)
There's also a section on the Wikipedia article on Argumentation theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
"Computational argumentation systems have found particular application in domains where formal logic and classical decision theory are unable to capture the richness of reasoning, domains such as law and medicine"
What about when referring to judges?