When Jawas Attack

By

-

November 20, 2019

It is one thing to scavenge and another to steal someone’s personal property. In The Mandalorian episodes The Child, a group of Jawas in a Sandcrawler were caught stripping the Razer Crest for parts. Multiple issues explode out of this incident.

Grand Theft Jawas

The Razer Crest was the personal property of The Mandalorian. The vehicle was parked on the planet Arvala-7. The Jawas worked collectively to strip the Razer Crest of parts, its outer hull, engine parts, equipment, and the Mandalorian’s weapons locker.

Grand theft is when a person takes real or personal property of another with a value over $950 or when property is taken from an automobile. Cal. Pen. Code § 487(a) and (d)(1). While the interstellar exchange on Beskar is unknown, the value of the Razer Crest and the equipment onboard is easily over $950 in value. The Jawas committed Grand Theft with their stripping and pillaging of the ship, which understandably upset the Mandalorian.

Trading With Jawas for the Return of Stolen Property

The Jawas wanted to “trade” something of value in exchange for the parts to the Razer Crest. Normal contract negotiations include an offer, terms, acceptance, consideration, and performance. This is rather insulting when the trade is for the return of personal property. This raises the issue of economic duress, which is when “a wrongful act which is sufficiently coercive to cause a reasonably prudent person faced with no reasonable alternative to succumb to the perpetrator’s pressure.” Andrieu v. Aquantia Corp., H044638, at *13-14 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018). Moreover, a party can rescind a contract if consent was “obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence.” CA Civ. Code § 1689(b)(1). Furthermore, statutory duress is when there is the unlawful detention of a person’s property. CA Civ. Code § 1569.

The Jawas demanding the Mandalorian to retrieve “The Egg” from a vicious wild animal in order to recover his personal property meets every meaning of “duress” in contract law. The Jawas found bold new ways to benefit from their lawless behavior, the most extreme in making someone risk their life for breakfast.

Adventures in Babysitting

The Mandalorian took his infant Target on a mission to storm the Jawas’ high speed Sandcrawler and on the worst egg hunt imaginable. This is in addition to fighting off Trandoshans and a gunfight with Jawas. Has the Mandalorian engaged in child endangerment?

California defines child endangerment as the following:

Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

Cal. Pen. Code § 273a(a).

Whether there has been child endangerment is highly fact specific. The Target’s bassinet following the Mandalorian while he attempted to board the Sandcrawler could have produced “great bodily harm” if the Jawas had fired upon the bassinet. The Jawas also deployed more medieval countermeasures of throwing objects at the Mandalorian, which could have caused injury if directed at the Target. However, since the bassinet was out of the line of fire from the bassinet, one can argue it was safer for the bassinet to follow the Mandalorian instead of being left alone in the desert.

The Mandalorian made the least dangerous decision by taking the Target with him to secure the Egg. Given the options to recover the parts were either leave the Target with Kuiil, who was with the Jawas who had expressed interest in the Target, the Mandalorian would have been rightfully concerned for the Target’s safety in the event more bounty hunters attacked or the Jawas turned on Kuiil. While leaving the Target to the side while confronting a large animal was not Plan A, it was the least bad option available to the Mandalorian.

A Public Policy Shootout over Contracts in The Mandalorian

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 19, 2019

0

Long, long, ago, in a courthouse far away, it was said that the freedom of contract be not lightly interfered with. Baltimore Ohio c. Railway v. Voigt, 176 U.S. 498, 504-5 (1900). The Mandalorian is a story with parties entering contracts upon contracts. However, what contracts in the first episode were valid and which were not?

The Enforceability of an Oral Contract Entered During a Shootout

The Mandalorian met IG-11 while the droid started an armed assault on a compound holding the Target for their respective bounties. This created an awkward meeting, as the Bounty Hunters’ Creed states that No Hunter Shall Interfere With Another’s Hunt. The Mandalorian made the offer that they split the reward for capturing the Target, to which IG-11 agreed. What was not agreed upon was IG-11’s counter offer to acquire the Reputation Credits for the hunt.

The basics of contract formation are 1) Offer; 2) Acceptance; 3) Consideration; and 4) Performance. Moreover, “All persons are capable of contracting, except minors, persons of unsound mind, and persons deprived of civil rights.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1556. Furthermore, the question for California courts is whether there is mutual assent between the parties, which is “manifested by an offer communicated to the offeree and an acceptance communicated to the offeror.” Donovan v. RRL Corp., 26 Cal.4th 261, 270-71 (Cal. 2001), citing 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Contracts, § 128, p. 153.

From the context of the shootout, the Mandalorian made an offer for he and IG-11 to work together and split the reward. IG-11 accepted this offer verbally and by conduct. However, there was no mutual assent on the issue of IG-11 getting the Reputation Credits for the hunt. While that term was not agreed upon, a court could find there was a contract between the parties to split the profit from the hunt.

IG-11’s Bounty Claim Violated Public Policy

Whoever contracted with IG-11 to kill the Target violated public policy and the Bounty Hunter’s Creed. The Mandalorian was right to take protective measures against IG-11.

The Bounty Hunters’ Creed states that:

In the Hunt One Captures or Kills, Never Both

In cases where the acquisition had been taken alive, that “choice” could not be altered. To kill an acquisition in the course of the hunt was one thing, but to purposely kill an unarmed, helpless being already subdued and unable to resist was seen as simple slaughter and wanton butchery. An acquisition “killed while attempting to escape” however, would be an entirely different matter altogether.

The Mandalorian had a contract to capture the Target; IG-11 had a contract to kill the target. IG-11’s contract to purposely kill an unarmed and helpless being was a gross violation of the Bounty Hunters’ Creed. Whoever hired IG-11 did not want a Bounty Hunter, they wanted a butcher.

A contract to kill someone is not the work of a bail bondsman, but a murder-for-hire contract. It is grossly illegal to contract to kill someone, especially an infant. The legal term is solicitation. Anyone who solicits another to commit murder can be sentenced to state prison for at least three and up to nine years. CA Penal Code § 653f. This raises significant issues as to what kind of puck was issued with a kill order on an infant, the work of a bail bondsmen is to bring someone in, not play hit man.

Contracts cannot violate public policy, which was defined by Lord Brougham, “that no one can lawfully do anything which has a tendency to be injurious to the public welfare.” Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity Etc. Co., 71 Cal.App. 492, 496-97 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925). A contract is void against public policy if it “clearly contravenes that which has been declared by statutory enactment or by judicial decisions to be public policy, or unless the agreement manifestly tends in some way to injure the public.” Spangenberg v. Spangenberg, 19 Cal.App. 439, 446-47 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912). As murder is clearly defined as being illegal and against public policy, one cannot enter a contract to murder another person.

I Have Spoken

Can Bounty Hunters Use Lethal Force?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 18, 2019

0

The Mandalorian is the story of a bounty hunter in the Outer Rim who is no stranger to using lethal force. Is it lawful for a bounty hunter to kill?

As a preliminary matter, many states have stopped using the term “bounty hunter.” In California, such as individual is a “bail fugitive recovery person,” who has extensive statutory requirements, including having both bail and private investigator licenses. CA Penal Code § 1299.02. Other requirements include having proper documentation before apprehending a bail fugitive; must not represent themselves as being with law enforcement; and provide at least six hours of notice to local law enforcement that they are going to apprehend a bail fugitive, absent exigent circumstances. CA Penal Code §§ 1299.05; 1299.06; 1299.07; and1299.08.

There are two big requirements: bail fugitive recovery persons cannot forcibly enter a premise or carry a weapon unless in compliance with state laws. CA Penal Code §§ 1299.09 and 1299.10.

In arguendo that the Mandalorian was in compliance with California gun laws, could a bounty hunter shoot a bail jumper? In a Connecticut case that asked whether warning shots could be fired at a fleeing bail jumper, the answer is “no.” The Court explained, “A bounty hunter’s legal right to seize and hold does not automatically authorize the use of force…” McGibony v. Danaher, No. CV094020419S, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2609, at *7 (Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2009).

That is not the end of the analysis. In the first episode of The Mandalorian, there was a fight with a human and a Quarren. The elements of the confrontation include the Mandalorian entering the cantina, not saying anything, and walking up to the bar. The two assailants surround the Mandalorian with claims the Mandalorian spilled the human’s drink when the Mandalorian entered the cantina. The human struck his knife across the Mandalorian’s chest armor and asked if the armor was real Beskar. This contact is technically battery, because the contact was a “willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Cal. Pen. Code § 242.

The contact of the knife against the armor was the moment the Mandalorian responded to the physical battery upon his person. This triggered classic self-defense analysis. The Mandalorian could have reasonably believed he was in immediate danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm, because he was surrounded and a knife had made contact with his person; The Mandalorian reasonably believed the use of force was needed to defend himself; and the Mandalorian used no more force than was necessary to defend against the danger. The human assailant was subdued with the use of force, but lethal force was not used on the Quarren until he fired a blaster at the Mandalorian. See, 1 CALCRIM 505 (2018). All of the Mandalorian’s actions were proportional to the threats he faced during the altercation.

Now, we don’t exactly know what Sub Paragraph 16 of the Boadsmen’s Guild Protocol Waiver says exactly, but it is hard to imagine that giving IG-11 a license to storm a stronghold by force…

Mandalorian Podcast on Chapter 1

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 14, 2019

0

The Mandalorian is here and Gabby Martin, Thomas Harper, and I sat down to discuss the first episode of this awesome series. Can bounty hunters kill bail jumpers? When a contract is unenforceable because it violates public policy? Find out as explore these issues and all want a toy from the big shocker at the end of the episode.

Can IG-88 Enter a Contract?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

November 1, 2019

0

The Mandalorian will feature IG-11, an assassin droid, who is seen in a gunfight in the first two previews. This is not the first time we have seen an IG Droid. The first was IG-88, who appeared in The Empire Strikes Back. These autonomous killing machines have appeared in multiple animated series as well. This raises the question; can an IG Droid enter a contract? Bounty hunting is a complicated profession, especially if a bounty hunter does not meet the legal definition of “person.”

Who Can Enter a Contract?

The law states “all persons are capable of contracting, except minors, persons of unsound mind, and persons deprived of civil rights.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1556, emphases added. There are multiple definitions of “person.” Consider these two examples:

“Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

Cal. Com. Code § 1201(b)(27)

“Person” includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or public entity.

Cal. Evid. Code § 175

The legal definition of “person” includes those who are nature born human beings or legal entities that conduct business or services. Moreover, every “person” within a state such as California, is subject to its jurisdiction and entitled to its protection. Cal. Gov’t Code § 270. Furthermore, it is universal language in Constitutions to state that “all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Cal Const, Art. I § 1, emphasis added.

The law does not address artificial intelligence, however the law does address “artificial persons” such as corporations. This raises the question; can a computer enter a contract? In the 1996 law review article Harvard Journal of Law & Technology that addressed whether computers could enter trading contracts, the essential question was whether the behavior manifested by the computer is roughly approximate to the behavior manifested by a person who understands that his or her actions may lead to the creation of a contract. Tom Allen and Robin Widdison, Can Computers Make Contracts? 9 Harv. J. Law & Tec 25, *39-40 (Winter, 1996).

Does any IG Droid understand that its actions can create a contract? This raises the issue of capacity.

Do IG Droids Have the Mental Capacity to Enter a Contract?

The law defines “capacity” to enter a contract as “a person’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of a decision and to make and communicate a decision, and includes in the case of proposed health care, the ability to understand its significant benefits, risks, and alternatives.” Cal. Prob. Code § 4609.

Case law goes further into describing contract formation requires that parties must have a “mutual understanding of what is being done.” Estate of Ginsberg 11 Cal.App.2d 210, 216 (1936).

IG-88 clearly understood that Darth Vader’s bounty was to capture the Millennium Falcon with the crew alive by any means necessary and no disintegrations. The terms were clear. While we never heard IG-88 speak in a film, the bounty hunter either understood the terms of the contract, and failed to capture the Millennium Falcon, or rejected the terms, and did not attempt to capture the Millennium Falcon.

What Will We See in The Mandalorian?

The ability for IG-88 or IG-11 to be able to enter into a contract will turn on whether they have the same behavior manifested by a person who understands that his or her actions may lead to the creation of a contract. While the law does not define artificial intelligence as a “person,” the law does recognize artificial persons such as corporations. If a IG droid can manifest an understanding that they have a contract, the law could recognize their ability to enter into agreements.

Can You Defend the Invisible Man for Breaking Out of Prison?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 29, 2019

0

The 1940 Invisible Man Returns features Vincent Price as Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe, an owner of a coalmine who is falsely convicted for the death of his brother and sentenced to death. The legal system having failed him, Radcliffe’s friend Dr. Frank Griffin, brother to the deceased original Invisible Man, used the invisibly formula on Radcliffe so he could escape execution. Imagine the Fugitive, but the hero is invisible and slowly going insane while looking for the real killer.

It should be clear as day that prison breaks are frowned upon. The punishment for a prison break for a felony is a fine or five years in prison. 18 U.S.C.S. § 751(a). Moreover, those who aide in a prison break can also be subject to imprisonment for up to five years. 18 U.S.C.S. § 752.

Here is the thing for Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe: he was to be executed the day of the escape. Legally speaking, Radcliffe had nothing to lose. Dr. Griffin on the other hand had a lot to lose with imprisonment for aiding in the escape of a felon. Lucky for both, there is a defense for them: Necessity Defense based on Radcliffe’s actual innocence. The necessity defense has a three-part test:

(1) There is no legal alternative to violating the law;

(2) The harm to be prevented is imminent; and

(3) A direct, causal relationship is reasonably anticipated to exist between defendant’s action and the avoidance of harm.

United States v. Benally, 233 F. App’x 864, 868 (10th Cir. 2007).

Sir Radcliffe had no legal alternative to violating the law, as he was going to be executed for a crime he did not commit; his execution was imminent; and Radcliffe escaped prison to avoid being executed for his brother’s death. As society does not want death row prisoners escaping, we have to address the fact that Radcliffe was innocent and that the legal system failed him. Even after escaping, Radcliffe would still need to prove his actual innocence, which would require:

(1) The new evidence will probably change the result if a new trial is granted;

(2) It must have been discovered since the trial;

(3) It must be such as could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence;

(4) It must be material to the issue;

(5) It must not be cumulative; and

(6) It must not be merely impeaching or contradictory to the former evidence.

See People v Marino, 99 AD3d 726, 730; People v Tankleff, 49 AD3d at 179.

Radcliffe was successful in learning about the conspiracy to kill his brother and the identity of the killer. The ultimate confessions by two individuals would be “new evidence” that would have changed the result of the trial, that was material, and there was no way to know it. Because if due diligence could have discovered the evidence, both the prosecutor and defense attorney would wish they were invisible before the ethics board.

Obstruction of Justice in Son of Frankenstein

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 25, 2019

0

Baron Wolf von Frankenstein failed to disclose to Inspector Krogh that he had treated the injured Frankenstein’s Creature. Does that failure (or cover-up) amount to obstruction of justice?

The Federal definition of obstruction of justice is:

Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

18 USCS. app. § 1510.

The elements to prove obstruction are the 1) willful endeavor by means of certain actions to prevent communication of information relative to violation of any criminal statute of United States and 2) criminal investigator must be individual authorized by department or agency of United States to conduct or engage in investigations of all prosecutions for violation of criminal law of United States. United States v. Williams, 470 F.2d 1339 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 936, 93 S. Ct. 1912, 36 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1973).

Inspector Krogh confronted Dr. Frankenstein after the murder of Ewald Neumüller, who was the 7^th victim to have a burst heart. Neumüller was one of the last two surviving jurors who had convicted Igor to hang. The other jurors were the other victims of burst hearts. Krogh did not outright ask Frankenstein if he had created a new Monster or knew the identity of the killer. However, Krogh did ask Frankenstein if there was any reason the Frankenstein family would not be safe on their estate.

Dr. Frankenstein did not openly incriminate himself with the Inspector’s questions. However, when asked about the whereabouts of the butler Thomas Benson, Frankenstein stated that Benson had been prone to go out drinking because of his war service. This apparently was a lie, which was contradicted by Elsa von Frankenstein’s discussion of Benson’s character.

Inspector Krogh’s second attempt at questioning Dr. Frankenstein was over the death of Emil Lang, who also had a burst heart. The inspector directly stated he believed the doctor who the identity of the killer. While not technically lying, an agitated Frankenstein said the monster was the killer. Upon further questioning, the doctor named Igor. The inspector countered that Igor was publically seen playing music at the time of the murders. Dr. Frankenstein failed to disclose that he had confront the Creature and Igor after the first round of questioning where Igor admitted to the murders.

Did these actions by Dr. Frankenstein amount to a willful endeavor by means of certain actions to prevent communication of information relative to violation of any criminal statute? The answer is clearly yes.

Dr. Frankenstein had direct knowledge that the Creature was alive. He did not have direct evidence of the Creature’s involvement in the killings during the first round of questioning, but the doctor did have suspicions. Moreover, Dr. Frankenstein was not truthful about his butler Benson. While the doctor did not know Benson had been killed, the doctor did know Benson was missing. Furthermore, Dr. Frankenstein had confronted Igor and had an admission of guilt, which the doctor failed to disclose to Inspector Krogh.

The lesson here is clear: Don’t play mad scientist and don’t lie to law enforcement investigating murders from the Creature you reanimated.