The rhetorical formula ‘law and literature’ places law before literature while the usually conjunctive ‘and’ connotes hierarchy and disjunction rather than equality and encounter. The concept of jurisliterature provides a lexical and theoretical remedy for such alienation and non-recognition. In the era of imaginal law and the politicization of common law practices through viral relay and online video presence the spectacle of governance becomes the governance of spectacles. Vision increasingly determines decision. Using the example of a recent four-part documentary trial, Woody Allen v Mia Farrow, this article examines the stakes of imaginal law, and the consequences of a juridism set free from the archive.