Is it Justified Homicide to Kill a Sleeping Vampire?

October 29, 2020

The law for self-defense and defense of others requires that someone “must actually and reasonably believe in the necessity of defending oneself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.” People v. Thinn, D074397, at *10-11 (Cal. Ct. App. July 23, 2020).

Does that apply to a vampire asleep in their coffin during daylight hours?

In the classic Hammer film, Horror of Dracula, Dr. Van Helsing kills both a bride of Dracula and Jonathan Harker, who had been transformed into a vampire, while they were asleep in their respective coffins. Was that justified homicide?

Determining the answer requires understanding self-defense. Case law explains:

“Self-defense is perfect or imperfect. For perfect self-defense, one must actually and reasonably believe in the necessity of defending oneself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. [Citation.] A killing committed in perfect self-defense is neither murder nor manslaughter; it is justifiable homicide.” (People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal.4th 987, 994.) Although a person acting in imperfect self-defense “also actually believes he must defend himself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury,” that belief is unreasonable. (Ibid.) “Imperfect self-defense mitigates, rather than justifies, homicide; it does so by negating the element of malice.” (Ibid.; see People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132 (Simon).)

People v. Thinn, D074397, at *10-11 (Cal. Ct. App. July 23, 2020)

The crux of the issue is whether Dr. Van Helsing believed that he needed to defend himself against imminent peril to protect his life. This is problematic with a sleeping vampire, because they are asleep. Moreover, self-defense cannot be asserted if the “defender” was the one who created the dangerous situation, such as committing a felony. People v. Greer, B287247, at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2019). The “sleeping vampire” situation could be one of an imperfect self-defense, where the use of deadly force was unreasonable. People v. Villanueva, 169 Cal.App.4th 41, 50 n.7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).

If vampires were considered “human” under the law, Dr. Van Helsing has some serious problems in making an effective self-defense argument. First, Dr. Van Helsing entered Dracula’s castle without permission, so he is trespassing. Secondly, he killed two vampires while they were asleep. The fear of imminent death is highly questionable under such circumstances. Dr. Van Helsing would at best have an imperfect self-defense argument, provided he could get around the trespassing issue. One argument would be he was searching for his friend Jonathan Harker as his reason for entering the castle.

The counter to whether Van Helsing’s actions were justified is the fact vampires are undead creatures that murder humans in their sleep for food. Van Helsing could argue that the vampires were not human, thus not persons under the law. As such, the good doctor was eradicating a dangerous animal that was a risk to human life, so the issue of self-defense is irrelevant when slaying sleeping vampires.

U.S. Patent No. ‘666 to V. Frankenstein and P. Krempe?

Brian Weissenberg

October 27, 2020

Severed hands, eyes, heads, brains. Grave robbing. Deception. Murder. There is no shortage of legal issues in Hammer’s 1957 classic: The Curse of Frankenstein, some of which (spoiler alert) actually landed Victor Frankenstein in prison. But beyond the gore and ghouls are tricky legal issues of another kind: intellectual property. After all, the film is, at its core, a story of invention—the fruits of which sour as the film unfolds. And integral to that story is the relationship between Frankenstein and Paul Krempe, a tutor-turned-partner-turned-frenemy, whose waning enthusiasm for the unnatural process he helped create (?) is part of the souring. This short post focuses on the relationship between both men and discusses the IP-focused question: who invented what?

Who Is An Inventor?

The question of who is an inventor under U.S. patent law can be complicated, particularly when there could be more than one inventor. Under U.S. patent law, identifying the inventor(s) on a patent requires “determining who conceived the subject matter at issue.” See In re VerHoef, 888 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Conception is “the touchstone of invention” and requires “a definite and permanent idea of an operative invention, including every feature of the subject matter sought to be patented.” Id. at 1366. More than one person can be an inventor on a patent, and each person need not contribute equally to the conception of the invention. See id. (describing requirements of a joint inventor).

Who Invented What?

So are Frankenstein and Krempe joint inventors? Since inventions are defined by the patent claims, that answer really depends on the language of the claims. See Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 972 F.3d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[W]ho should be listed on the face of a patent may vary depending on what, exactly, is claimed.”).

Let’s say, for example, the hypothetical patent claimed a method for reanimating a once-dead organism, or an apparatus for the same. It seems that both Frankenstein and Krempe would have a colorable argument for being co-inventors. After all, the film essentially starts with an uplifting montage of the pair performing experiments together and, ultimately, reanimating a very cute small dog. These scenes were accompanied by Frankenstein’s narration, who noted, among other things:

“We went on together, probing into the unknown.”
“To this aim, we finally turned all our energies.”
“It took us years of unrelenting work to discover what we were seeking.“
“Then, one night…our efforts were rewarded.”

Frankenstein’s story-telling suggests that both men played some role in conceiving the invention, but, of course, we’d need to dig into the facts a bit more to determine the exact contribution each made. And if that contribution didn’t make it into the actual claim language, then it might be harder to make a case for joint inventorship.

But is Krempe a co-inventor on a method and/or apparatus for reanimating, literally, a patchwork of different human parts (and perhaps even the Creature itself)? A key plot in the film is the deteriorating relationship between Frankenstein and Krempe, which begins just after the two successfully reanimate the dead dog. It seems that Krempe is onboard with their work up to this point, and even wonders aloud about the wonderful future implications of their work. And if the film ended there, then a patent (or more!) bearing both their names might well have been possible.

But of course, that’s not where the movie ended. Frankenstein wanted to go just a bit further with their work, and Krempe was not having it. Numerous times throughout the remainder of the film, Krempe distances himself from Frankenstein and his work in no uncertain terms. For example:

Frankenstein: In six months’ time you’ll rejoice in the fact that you helped me present this achievement to the world. You’ll be as famous as I will.

Krempe (interrupting): No, Victor, infamous. I will not help you, not anymore!

So assuming Frankenstein filed a patent on a method and/or apparatus for reanimating a patchwork of human parts (or the resulting creation itself), Krempe presumably would not want his name listed alongside Frankenstein’s.

But would it be appropriate to exclude Krempe’s name from that patent? Is he a co-inventor of that patent? The answer seems to be “it depends,” but there’s a good case to be made that Krempe contributed to the inventions that led to the creation of Frankenstein’s Creature. Recall that both Frankenstein and Krempe arguably contributed to the inventions that led to the reanimation of the dead dog. And as far as the audience can tell, Frankenstein seems to use similar (if not the same) mechanisms to reanimate an assortment of human parts. Indeed, at one point in the movie, Frankenstein persuades (coerces?) Krempe to help raise the Creature, reminding Krempe that “that apparatus was constructed for dual operation, you know that.” So it’s possible that a Frankenstein patent claiming a method and/or apparatus for reanimating…a patchwork collection of human parts would need to list Krempe’s name (but, as discussed, it would depend on what the claims actually say, and a further assessment of each person’s contributions to the invention).

Finally, note that if Krempe were indeed required to be named as a co-inventor and his name was omitted, someone might later be able to argue that the patent fails to list a required inventor, and is therefore invalid. But that person would probably have a hard time getting Krempe to support that argument. As we learn in the film’s final scenes, Krempe would rather let Frankenstein languish in prison than admit any part of what happened. And, as Frankenstein ironically explained not too much earlier to his spurned lover, “proof, my dear, that’s all the authorities would be interested in. Proof.”

Happy Halloween, folks!

The Crimes of Ygor

Josh Gilliland

October 25, 2020

Bela Lugosi’s role of Ygor in Son of Frankenstein and Ghost of Frankenstein is a character study in evil. Not just run of the mill random acts of ill will, but cold and calculated malice to kill all of the jurors who had originally convicted Ygor for death.

Profile in Deceit

In Son of Frankenstein, “Old Ygor” is introduced lurking around the town of Frankenstein. Yes, that means “Frankenstein” is used interchangeably with a person, a town, and the Creature. Ygor introduced himself to Baron Wolf von Frankenstein by spying on him. These acts would be an invasion of privacy, which is when a person physically and knowingly, “enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission…or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8(a).

Ygor appealed to Dr. Wolf von Frankenstein’s ego in securing the doctor’s help in reviving the comatose Creature. Ygor represented only that the Creature “does things for me.” The specific definition of “things” was killing the jurors who had convicted Ygor. By the time of Dr. Frankenstein’s entrance, the Creature had killed six out of eight jurors by striking them so hard their hearts burst.

The failure to define “things” was fraud in convincing Dr. Frankenstein to heal the Creature. Ygor suppressed the fact that the Creature had committed six murders, which was material information that Dr. Frankenstein should have known about before reviving the Creature. See, Cal. Civ. Code § 1710(3).

A Conspiracy for Murder

Ygor and the Creature worked together in performing three additional murders. These murders included Frankenstein’s butler and the two remaining jurors. Ygor played music where he was publicly visible, giving himself an alibi for the deaths.

A conspiracy is when two or more people conspire to commit a crime. Cal. Pen. Code § 182(a). Coconspirators can be responsible for the criminal harms “they have naturally, probably and foreseeably put in motion.” People v. Luparello, 187 Cal.App.3d 410, at p. 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). For Ygor and the Creature, they intended the two jurors to be killed. The Creature even went so far to make one of the murders look like an accident (which goes to show the Creature understood the wrongfulness of his actions).

The death of the butler was not planned by Ygor working with the Creature, so at best, Ygor could be charged with second degree murder.

Kidnapping of Children

The children Peter Frankenstein (Son of Frankenstein) and Cloestine Hussman (Ghost of Frankenstein) were placed in mortal danger by the Creature. The facts for each are radically different.

The Creature kidnapped Peter Frankenstein (Wolf’s young son) after Wolf had shot Ygor. Ygor was believed dead, as the way the story ended showed there were no plans for a sequel. Kidnapping is the forcible taking of a person. Cal. Pen. Code § 207(a). The Creature picking up Peter and carrying him to the lab meets the required acts for conviction. However, as Ygor was incapacitated and had not planned a kidnapping with the Creature, the kidnapping is not a natural and probable consequence of their conspiracy.

The Creature took Cloestine Hussman from her room and wanted her brain put in his body. Ygor stated that the Creature taking the child was something he could not stop the Creature from doing. While Ygor and the Creature were clearly collaborators, Ygor is best classified as an accessory-after-the-fact. Nothing was done to return Cloestine to her family, meaning everyone in on the plan to give the Creature a new brain had assisted in the kidnapping of a child.

If I Only Had a Brain

Dr. Ludwig von Frankenstein planned to transfer the brain of his slain associate Dr. Kettering to the Creature’s body. This would have been cosmic justice, with the victim taking the body of his killer. However, Ygor convinced Dr. Theodore Bohmer (Dr. Frankenstein’s colleague who had once been his professor) to switch Dr. Kettering’s brain with Ygor’s brain. This would be the worst case scenario of the amoral murderer getting an undying body.

The musical brains are again fraud. Dr. Frankenstein was intentionally misled to place Ygor’s brain in the Creature’s body. Unfortunately for Ygor, his blood type was not compatible with the Creature’s body and he immediately went blind.

Ygor’s Opus

All of Ygor’s actions were based on revenge for those who had sentenced him to death. His ability to hoodwink both sons of Frankenstein was impressive, since one would have expected Ludwig to have learned from both his father’s and brother’s mistakes.

Could Angry Villagers Blow Up Castle Frankenstein…Legally?

Josh Gilliland

October 5, 2020

The Ghost of Frankenstein picks up right where Son of Frankenstein left off: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein deeded the Frankenstein estate to the village. Unfortunately for the village, things were not going well, so the villagers logically deduced that they are all had been cursed by the Frankenstein Castle. The Mayor attempted to talk the villagers out of the being cursed non-sense, but when threatened with being voted out of office, the Mayor let the villagers go rampage their way to the castle with dynamite.

The Mayor does not win a Profile in Courage. That said, was it within the powers of the local government to empower angry villagers to blow up the Frankenstein Castle?

Baron Wolf von Frankenstein had deeded the Frankenstein Estate to the village. This was within the Baron’s rights to deed the property and get out of town due to the “unpleasantness.” As such, the village now owned the Frankenstein Estate.

Normally there are land use committees that develop plans to use public property. While local city council meetings can be chaotic, they do not normally end with a mob armed with explosives and torches. Moreover, buildings with historical significance can also require additional review in order to be approved for demolition. See generally, San Diego Trust Savings Bank v. Friends of Gill, 121 Cal.App.3d 203 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).

Consider that in San Jose, California, a demolition permit requires: a completed Building Permit Application that shows 1) a plot plan with the the building site and distances to property lines and to structures on the site, such as pools, septic tanks, detached garages, etc; 2) Non-buildable areas; 3) For any buildable area, hire a licensed engineer to prepare and wet-stamp a demolition, drainage, and compaction plan; and 4) Secure other Clearances.

The reason for all of these rules should be clear: no one wants Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) being blasted all over where people live. The villagers who decided to blow up Castle Frankenstein did not get that memo on the dangers of manmade chemicals.

It is well-established law in California that it is a crime to maliciously place dynamite in a building with intent to destroy it. People v. Cole, 28 Cal.App. 448, 451 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915). The intent of these laws should be self-explanatory: blowing up buildings results in chunks of said building flying and hitting other buildings (and human beings) with great velocity. These laws are in place to protect the public welfare so no one gets hit with a high-speed door/rebar/brick/stove/glass/etc.

There was zero permitting process in Ghost of Frankenstein. The location where life was created from dead corpses would have historical significance, albeit one riddled with grave robbing and murder. However, that dark history is not a reason to give way to anarchy. Laws are in place to protect public safety, which includes people using explosives to blow-up a castle. No good comes from lawlessness, which was evidenced by the villagers freeing Frankenstein’s Creature, which had been encased in sulfur. If they had not resorted to being an angry mob, the Creature would not have been released from his sulfuric tomb. And the fourth Universal Frankenstein film would have been over in 5 minutes.

Would Reformatting the Autobots to be Decepticons be a War Crime?

Josh Gilliland

September 29, 2020

The new Transformers animated series on Netflix War for Cybertron Trilogy posed law of war questions in “Siege”: Would reformatting the Autobots into Decepticons with the Allspark be a war crime?

Looking at international law of Earth, codified as law in the United States as 18 U.S.C. § 2441, we can arrive at the following determinations:

The War Crime of Torture (18 U.S.C. § 2441(A)):

The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

The process of reformatting an Autobot was admitted to “look painful.” This would meet the requirement inflicting severe physical pain. The reason for causing the severe pain would be racially motivated on the basis of being Autobots. The wildcard here is all of the Autobots on Cybertron being within the custody or control of the Decepticons. Can control be exercised on a planetary scale? If the answer is yes, then this would meet all the elements of torture. If not, this charge would come close but fail.

The War Crime of Cruel or Inhuman Treatment (18 U.S.C. § 2441(B)):

The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

The analysis here is similar to torture. Yes, the reformatting process would cause pain and suffering. The issue here is whether there can be control on a planetary scale.

The War Crime of Performing Biological Experiments (18 U.S.C. § 2441(C)):

The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.

The concept of “biological” experiments on living machines is one beyond human science and law. If Transformers have “biology” in a way that can meet our understanding on Earth, what the Decepticons were planning would meet the spirit of the law.

The War Crime of Murder (18 U.S.C. § 2441(D)):

The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

Murder is not applicable, as the Autobots were not being killed in the reformatting process.

The War Crime of Mutilation or Maiming (18 U.S.C. § 2441(E)):

The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.

The Decepticons reformatting all Autobots would be mass mutilation of an entire race, including those not engaged in hostilities.

The War Crime of Intentionally Causing Serious Bodily Injury (18 U.S.C. § 2441(F)):

The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

Reformatting all Autobots would cause serious bodily harm and meet the requirements of this war crime.

There is another war crime hiding in plain sight: Genocide. One normally would think genocide involves death, but with reformatting Transformers, this crime is more than meets the eye. Genocide is “whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such, kills members of that group.” 18 U.S.C. § 1091(a)(1). The reformatting process would eliminate the Autobot race. Even if the there were still living Transformers after the reformatting, there would be no more Autobots. They would be extinct, their race destroyed by the reformatting. This is genocide without a body count.

Boldly Going to the Lower Decks

Josh Gilliland

September 15, 2020

Star Trek Lower Decks is everything I love about Star Trek with a wicked sense of humor. Our away team of lawyers have been livestreaming on Get Vokl on Friday nights at 800 pm PDT about the legal issues in the episode from the week before. Below are the videos on our YouTube Channel and audio posted on our podcast channel. Join us as we have a lot of fun discussing Star Trek each Friday night about Lower Decks.

Episode 1 & 2: Second Contact and Envoys

Episode 3: Temporal Edict

Episode 4: Moist Vessel

Episode 5: Cupid’s Errant Arrow

On a somber note, here is a short podcast on the passing of my father and seeing Star Trek The Motion Picture with him in 1979.

Warping the Necessity Defense

Josh Gilliland

September 8, 2020

Star Trek has a long history of not following orders. These actions often can fall under the “necessity defense” or “defense of necessity.” To illustrate how the defense can be applied, let’s review Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

Admiral James T. Kirk learned from Vulcan Ambassador Sarek that Spock would have shared his immortal soul known as a katra with someone before death. Kirk quickly determined Captain Spock performed a mind meld with an unconscious Leonard McCoy, before Spock sacrificed himself to save the USS Enterprise. McCoy began suffering psychological problems from the mind meld, which resulted in his arrest, and ultimately to be sent to a psychiatric hospital.[1]

Kirk requested the use of the decommissioned USS Enterprise for a mission to the Genesis Planet to recover Spock’s body and take it to Vulcan, in order to save both Dr. McCoy and Spock’s soul. Admiral Harry Morrow denied Kirk’s request.

Not one to take “no” for an answer, Kirk and Sulu broke McCoy out of jail. The senior crew of the Enterprise then assisted in the theft of the USS Enterprise, plus threatening one transporter officer and sabotaging the USS Excelsior.

Could a lawyer such as Samuel T. Cogley have defended Admiral Kirk and the surviving crew of the Enterprise with the necessity defense, if the crew of the Enterprise had not plead guilty after saving Earth (again) in Star Trek IV?[2]

The necessity defense is an affirmative defense to a crime. Kirk would have to show that the “harm that would have resulted from compliance with the law would have significantly exceeded the harm actually resulting from the defendant’s breach of the law.”[3]

Could the necessity defense apply to breaking Dr. McCoy out of the Starfleet holding cell? The test in California (where Starfleet Command is located) has the following for the necessity defense for escaping prisoners that must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence[4]:

1. The defendant was faced with a specific threat of death or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future;
2. There was a history of complaints that were not acted on, so that a reasonable person would conclude that any additional complaints would be ineffective;
3. There was no time or opportunity to seek help from the courts;
4. The defendant did not use force or violence against prison personnel or other people in the escape [other than the person who was the source of the threatened harm to the defendant];

AND

1. The defendant immediately reported to the proper authorities when he had attained a position of safety from the immediate threat.

First, Dr. McCoy needed treatment for his side effects of the Vulcan mind meld that were causing a risk to McCoy’s health, from speaking in Spock’s voice, to delusions, to obsessive behavior. Moreover, Spock’s katra was in danger. Second, Admiral Kirk had sought permission to take the Enterprise to Genesis in order to treat McCoy and Spock, which had been denied. Third, given the need for immediate medical treatment, and the classified nature of Project Genesis, the Courts were an unlikely option. Fourth, McCoy did not use force against the guards, but both Kirk and Sulu assaulted the Starfleet prison personnel. This element is problematic, because the guards were just doing their jobs when Kirk and Sulu subdued them. Fifth, the crew of the Enterprise reported to Vulcan, one of the charter members of the Federation of Planets.

Expert testimony would need to be offered to prove McCoy was in immediate danger. Case law states that “imminent” means “likely to happen without delay.”[5] In terms of medical dangers, Courts have found that risk created by high blood sugar caused by diabetes was not imminent danger.[6] While a mind meld with someone’s soul is not in the same category as high blood sugar, the Defense would need to explain the danger to both McCoy and Spock.

The analysis of breaking McCoy out of jail and for stealing the USS Enterprise is substantially the same. Kirk must also prove they did not create a greater danger than the one avoided; that a reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances; and that the crew of the Enterprise did not substantially contribute to the emergency.[7]

There are maritime cases that show how the necessity defense has been applied over the centuries. Examples include crews who revolted and forced a vessel to return to port because it was unseaworthy; ships to take refuge in a blockaded or embargoed port due to dangerous weather; or make a stop in a prohibited place due to heavy traffic.[8] None of these are helpful to the defense, so the argument would need to be factually argued to the elements in the jury instructions.

The crew of the Enterprise did not create a danger greater than the one avoided (the Klingons were the ones who destroyed the USS Grissom). A reasonable person could logically conclude that stealing the Enterprise was necessary under the circumstances. Finally, Kirk did not substantially contribute to the emergency. While the prosecution would argue there was the risk of extensive damage to space dock or the USS Excelsior from sabotage. However, given there was not, these arguments would fail as speculative.

The argument that potentially does not fail is the destruction of the USS Enterprise. If the ship had a full crew, the automation circuits would not have overloaded, and the vessel would not have been crippled with one shot. My guess is this argument would fail, because Kirk turned death into a fighting chance for life.

The Search for Spock is Star Trek at its purest. The story is one of loyalty to friends where the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Kirk, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu, and Uhura acted without hesitation to save both Dr. McCoy from a Vulcan mindmeld and Spock’s immortal soul, even if it meant destroying their careers and prison sentences. All of their actions were born from the necessity of saving their shipmates. All of their actions showed that the necessity defense was a test of character in facing a no-win scenario. And that is one of the greatest messages in Star Trek.

[1] See, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Released June 1, 1984, Paramount Pictures, http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_III:_The_Search_for_Spock, Last visited April 1, 2016

[2] Cogley was the attorney who defended Captain Kirk in the Original Series episode “Court Martial.” See, http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Court_Martial_(episode), Last visited April 1, 2016.

[3] State v. Rein, 477 N.W.2d 716, 717 (Minn. App. 1991).

[4] 2-2600 CALCRIM 2764

[5] United States v. Wilde (D.Alaska Oct. 11, 2011, No. 4:10-cr-021-SAO) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117121, at *24.

[6] U.S. v. Perdomo-Espana, 522 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2008).

[7] 2-3400 CALCRIM 3403.

[8] United States v. Ashton, 24 F.Cas. (C.C.Mass.1834) (No. 14,470); The William Gray, 29 F.Cas. 1300 (C.C.N.Y.1810) (No. 17,694); The Brig Struggle v. United States, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 71, 3 L.Ed. 660 (1815); and Commonwealth v. Brooks, 99 Mass. 434 (1868).

1...131415...137 Page 14 of 137