Home Blog Page 25

How to Prosecute Thanos for Killing Half of All Life?

By
Josh Gilliland
-
0

Thanos The Mad Titan is the most dangerous environmentalist war criminal in pop culture. In the comics, Thanos was a literal lover of Death. In Avengers Infinity War, Thanos is more complex. He wants to kill half of all life in the universe in order to sustain life. In Thanos’ twisted reality, eliminating half of all living beings would preserve natural resources allowing life to flourish. In Thanos’ mind, he is the hero.

The slight problem with that fanatical belief? Thanos committed mass genocide to achieve his dream of universal sustainability.

Prosecuting Thanos for the extermination of half of all life at the snap of his figures would cause multiple challenges. No one has been prosecuted for any mass killing of that magnitude before. The closest would be the war crimes trials of the Nazis after World War II. Even then, it was not one person who snapped his fingers to commit mass murder in the blink of an eye.

The Allies after World War II agreed to the procedural rules for prosecuting Axis members for war crimes in the London Charter. 59 Stat. 1544. Article Six of the London Charter defined the jurisdiction of the Nuremberg war crimes trials as follows:

(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) War crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.  

There was no defense for war crimes. The trials were heard by a panel of four judges who each had an alternate. The law applied to the trials were either under international law or the laws of war. See, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.  621 F.3d 111, 132-134 (2d Cir. 2010) for an overview of the London Charter.

The remaining living half of the universe all rightfully would want to bring Thanos to justice. It is not known how many alien civilizations there are in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but literally every civilization would have a claim against Thanos for his Mass Extinction Attack (MEA). One option for prosecution Thanos is for “allied” civilizations that work together for his capture to create their own version of the London Charter, whether it is the Hala Charter, the Xandar Conference, or Tarnax II Declaration.

The “Titan Tribunal” would need to have a representative number of judges for the trial of Thanos, but not to the point that a trial would become unmanageable. One option is to look to the major powers of the universe to each send a judge for the proceedings. There would need to be a limit in order to have judicial efficiency, whether the panel has four judges, nine, or ideally not more than twelve. The judicial representatives would elect a “Chief Justice” for case management and evidentiary rulings during testimony. The judges would serve as finders or fact and law in reaching a verdict on the charges against Thanos.

Wakanda should represent Earth in any such proceedings, as Wakanda was location for the battle with Thanos. While the entire population of Earth suffered 50% fatalities, Wakanda has a strong jurisdictional claim as the invaded nation by an alien army. The United States could provide an alternate judge, as New York was invaded once and assaulted before the Battle of Wakanda. 

Charging Thanos for Genocide

The charges against Thanos can be numerous, but there is one overarching crime that cannot be ignored: Genocide.

Genocide is defined (at least in the United States) when someone, “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 punishment for having caused death is either death OR imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $ 1,000,000, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 1091(b).

Every allied civilization should be able to agree to a universal charge of genocide against Thanos. The Mad Titan declared war on life for his reason to kill half of all life in the universe. Thanos had the specific intent to destroy half of ALL national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups in the universe. There usually is a form of discrimination in cases of genocide, with one group seeking the destruction of others. Thanos is unique in that he played God in deciding to “thin the herd” of every life form in creation.

The crime of genocide requires the intentional killing of a “substantial part” of a national group (in this case, a species). This was evident where Thanos had the Zen-Whoberis population divided into two groups and one of them slaughtered. 50% of a population would be a “substantial part” for prosecuting Thanos for genocide.  

Prosecutors could prove a case of genocide against Thanos. The act of reducing half of all life to ash should be universally agreed to by every civilization in the galaxy. While there are likely divergent legal systems across the universe, this is one charge all wronged civilizations can agree to for prosecution.

Crimes Against Peace

Thanos could also be charged with crimes against peace. Thanos and his cult followers planned and initiated a war of aggression against life. This included, but was not limited to, the murder of the half of the Zen-Whoberis population; attack on Luphom; attempted invasion of Earth in the Battle of New York; assault on Xandar to recover an Infinity Stone; massacre of Asgardian refugees; attack on New York to kidnap Dr. Stephen Strange for the Time Stone; and invasion of Wakanda to extract the Mind Stone from the Vision.     

All of these actions were in furtherance of Thanos’ plan to exterminate half of all life in the universe. Prosecutors could argue Thanos had a universal war of aggression, which all of his actions had the end game to commit a Mass Extinction Attack.

Terrorism vs War

It is worth noting that Thanos acted independently of any nation-state. His own home world was lost to an environmental disaster. Those who followed Thanos could be described somewhere between a political and religious movement determined to exterminate half the life in the universe. While the “children” of Thanos followed his orders, this was more in line with executing his will, opposed to carrying out a national policy. This makes them sound more like terrorists and less like uniformed members of a military on behalf of a country. This could play a role in prosecuting Thanos and his followers as terrorists or as war criminals.

Judgment at Titan

The crimes of Thanos transcend crimes against humanity into crimes against life. Thanos did everything from kidnap children after murdering their parents to universal genocide. Prosecuting him would be extremely complex, but that is not a reason to withdraw from the rule of law. In Justice Robert Jackson’s opening statement for the war crimes trial of Nazi leaders, Jackson stated the following on the unprecedented nature of the proceedings:

Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance. It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does expect that your juridical action will put the forces of international law, its precepts, its prohibitions and, most of all, its sanctions, on the side of peace, so that men and women of good will, in all countries, may have “leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the law.”

The Avengers have much to avenge after the events of Infinity War. However, a mission to kill Thanos for his crimes would be purely for revenge and not about justice. Holding Thanos accountable for his Mass Extinction Attack with a trial, to expose his twisted beliefs, and convict him for genocide, would send a message to [fictional] genocidal extremists that the rule of law protects life from those who would burn it to ashes.

Kong, King of Strict Liability

By
Josh Gilliland
-
0

In the original King Kong, an exuberant Carl Denham captured King Kong and brought Kong back to New York City. The former ruler of Skull Island was reduced to a shackled vaudeville act.

The box office from the opening night was $10,000 (roughly $189,056.06 adjusted for inflation). It appeared Denham was going to be very commercially successful, however, Denham’s show came to a violent halt after Kong was enraged by flash photography, resulting in a rampage across New York. The mayhem included Kong: dropping a woman out of a window who he mistook for Ann Darrow; picking a man up, biting him, and then dropping the unlucky pedestrian; knocking down the tracks for an elevated train, causing a full train to crash, followed by Kong smashing the train car with the commuters inside; and extensive property damage.

Plus a giant dead gorilla at 350 5th Avenue.

Carl Denham’s Liability

The lessor known 1933 Son of Kong begins with Denham being the defendant in eleven lawsuits and a grand jury about to issue an indictment against him. Denham escapes New York on the SS Venture, trying to avoid liability.

That $10,000 box office would not be enough to pay off all the plaintiffs.

Two observations: First, Song of Kong is absolutely right as a plot device that people would sue Carl Denham for King Kong’s rampage. Secondly, Denham’s escape from New York would not eliminate his liability. The plaintiffs’ could seek default judgments against Denham after they meet the notice requirements for Denham’s failure to defend himself.

Denham would be strictly liable for the damage caused by King Kong. It is well established in New York that “one who keeps wild animals on his premises must see to it at his peril that they do no damage to others.” Stevens v. Hulse, 263 N.Y. 421, 423-24, (1934). Wild animals are presumed to be vicious. Baugh v. Beatty, 91 Cal. App. 2d 786, 791, 205 P.2d 671 (1949). Moreover, a monkey is a wild animal (ferae naturae). Garelli v. Sterling-Alaska Farms, 25 Misc.2d 1032 (Supreme Court, Queens Cty., N.Y. 1960).

A court would find that Denham had a legal duty to protect people from King Kong in the theater. First, there is no question that Kong is a “wild animal” and would be presumed to be vicious as a matter of law. As such, Denham had a duty to keep patrons safe from Kong. The failure of the “chrome chains” to restrain Kong were the reason for the giant ape’s rampage across Manhattan. As such, the following damage from Kong’s escape would fall on Denham for a wild animal causing death and destruction.

Denham might have an argument that if he had secured a charter from the legislature (presumably the state or city) for keeping King Kong for educational and entertainment purposes, then he would not be strictly liable for Kong’s damage, but held to a standard of negligence. Guzzi v. N.Y. Zoological Soc’y, 135 N.E. 897 (N.Y. 1922). Whether or not it was reasonably foreseeable the chains could not restrain Kong, or knowledge of how Kong would respond to flashbulbs, could change the outcome of lawsuits against Denham. However, it is unlikely Carl Denham did any sort of paperwork before King Kong’s Broadway premier.

After the events in Son of Kong, Denham’s treasure would be needed to pay off his default judgments. He likely had his bank accounts garnished and assets seized. If he had any money left over, he would need it for a criminal defense attorney. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright establishing that states had to provide criminal defendants the right to counsel was not until 1963.

King Kong was the Victim

Why do we care about an 85 year old movie about a giant ape? How is it people connect with a “creature” brought to life by stop motion animation?

One answer is King Kong is the victim. Carl Denham had a get rich quick scheme that removed Kong from his home. Kong goes from the apex predator of Skull Island to involuntarily conscripted Broadway act. Moreover, the revolutionary visual effects enabled movie goers to develop an emotional attachment to King Kong from his expressive features. Whether Kong was fighting dinosaurs or rampaging across New York, the audience have a character they can connect with on a human level. What happened to King Kong was not his fault; Kong was the victim of shortsighted greed. That is a timeless injustice that everyone can understand.

Of Monsters, Men, and Competency at San Diego Comic Fest

By
Josh Gilliland
-
0

We strive to do a unique mock trial with law students at San Diego Comic Fest each year. For 2018, we had our most complicated mock hearing to date in honor of the Frankenstein bicentennial. Using the events of the 1931 film as the fact pattern, law students from Golden Gate University and the University of Oregon represented Frankenstein’s Creature and Dr. Henry Frankenstein.

Case Background

In the 1931 film Frankenstein, Dr. Henry Frankenstein and his assistant Fritz exhume one corpse, retrieve the body of an executed prisoner, and steal an abnormal brain from a university. The amalgamation of deceased tissue was brought to life through Dr. Frankenstein’s experiments.

The Creature was kept in darkness for several days and then imprisoned in a cellar. Fritz tortured the Creature with a whip and fire. The Creature killed Fritz to protect itself. Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Waldman decided to destroy the Creature by conducting a vivisection on him while sedated. The Creature awoke while Dr. Waldman was beginning the procedure, killed him, and escaped.

The Creature befriended a young girl named Maria. Both Maria and the Creature tossed flowers in a lake to watch them float. The Creature tossed Maria in the water, thinking the girl would float like one of the flowers. To the Creature’s horror, Maria drowned.

Was the Creature Legally Competent to Stand Trial? 

Attorneys for the Creature brought a motion that the Creature was not legally competent to stand trial as a minor, because the Creature lacked sufficient present ability to consult with counsel and assist in preparing his defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 709(a). The Prosecution opposed the motion, challenging the application of the standard for minors, as the Creature was nearly seven feet tall with the body of an adult. The Prosecution argued the Creature was a competent adult with competency needing to be based upon the requirements and procedures outlined in Cal. Penal Code § 1367.

Was Dr. Frankenstein Criminally Responsible for the Creature’s Actions? 

The state charged Dr. Henry Frankenstein with contributing to the delinquency of the Creature under Cal. Penal Code § 272, due to his failure as the Monster’s legal guardian to exercise reasonable care, supervision, protection, and control over the Creature, resulting in the deaths of Little Maria, Fritz, and Dr. Waldman. Dr. Frankenstein was also charged with Murder in the Second Degree pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 187.

Attorneys for Dr. Frankenstein brought a motion to set aside the indictment under Cal. Penal Code § 995, because the charge was not found, endorsed, and presented as prescribed under the California Penal Code, because the law does not speak to contributory delinquency for reanimated human remains. Cal. Penal Code § 272 applies to children and the Monster is not a child. Moreover, there was no probable cause for charging Dr. Frankenstein for the Monster’s actions resulting in Little Maria’s death. The Prosecution opposed the motion and argued that Dr. Henry Frankenstein’s failure to exercise the reasonable care, supervision, protection, and control over the Monster, resulted in the deaths of three people.

The Mock Hearing

The law students did an incredible job arguing for their clients. Witness examinations were very well done.

The Court ruled that the Creature was a minor, but could be tried as an adult for the death of Little Maria. However, the Creature was not legally competent to stand trial, based on expert testimony on the Creature’s ability to consult with counsel and assist in preparing his defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. As such, the Creature was to be sent to a mental health facility for treatment.

Dr. Frankenstein presented the issue of someone whose conduct was morally reprehensible, but not legally responsible for the deaths caused by the Creature. However, there were grounds for Dr. Frankenstein to be tried for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Moreover, the Court recommended the State add the charge of attempted murder of the Creature with Dr. Waldman against Dr. Henry Frankenstein.

The audio from the mock hearing, including the question and answer session, is available on our podcast channel.

Kaiju Panel

I was invited as a late addition to the Kaiju panel moderated by Beth Accomando, KPBS Cinema Junkie. It was a lot of fun to geek out with Miguel Rodriguez of the Horrible Imaginings Film Festival; artist Hiroshi Kanantani of Monster Attack Team, and Edward L. Holland, editor in chief of Monster Attack Team. We had a rip-roaring good time sharing our knowledge of Kaiju movie history, themes, and thoughts on Godzilla, Gamera, Mothra, and more.

Is it in the Best Interests of Your Children to Leave Planet Earth?

By
Josh Gilliland
-
0

If you are not watching Netflix’s Lost in Space, stop reading and go watch the first episode “Impact.” The episode story structure is told in “present” events and flashbacks where the Robinsons decide to leave Earth for the 24th colony to Alpha Centauri.

John Robinson was a Navy SEAL and deployed somewhere in a global conflict. The Earth was hit was by an unknown celestial object on Christmas Day 2044, resulting in nuclear winter conditions on the planet. Maureen applied to take the family of three children as colonists to escape Earth. After acceptance, Maureen sent her husband an “Assignment of Child Custody” for John to sign in order for them to leave for the program in a month.

Ouch.

States across the country have procedures for the assignment of guardianship of children. In the episode “Impact,” the California form used is FL-311 for Maureen’s custody petition, which is under Cal. Fam. Code § 6200, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.

As there are no allegations of domestic violence, it would have made more sense for Maureen to use form FL-260, which is for an independent action for exclusive custody of children without the dissolution of marriage. The relevant code section is Cal. Fam. Code § 3120, which states:

Without filing a petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties, a spouse may bring an action for the exclusive custody of the children of the marriage. The court may, during the pendency of the action, or at the final hearing thereof, or afterwards, make such order regarding the support, care, custody, education, and control of the children of the marriage as may be just and in accordance with the natural rights of the parents and the best interest of the children. The order may be modified or terminated at any time thereafter as the natural rights of the parties and the best interest of the children may require.

Fathers and mothers of minor children have equal responsibilities to support their children. Cal. Fam. Code § 3900. Both Maureen and John clearly have the best interests of their children in mind. Given the fact the Earth was on its way to looking like Venus, Maureen seeking custody of the children in order to leave the planet was arguably in the best interests of the children. However, the fact Maureen and the children would be leaving the planet forever would eliminate John’s reasonable visitation rights. While staying on Earth would be detrimental to the best interests of the Robinson children, there was no evidence seeing their father was in any way harmful. See, Cal. Fam. Code § 3100. As Maureen and John’s estrangement did reach an uneasy détente, we do not know how they decided it was in the best interests of the children for all to join the 24th Colonists short of John refusing to sign away his parental rights.

Are Human Sacrifices Protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege?

By
Josh Gilliland
-
0

Catherine Wilder on Hulu’s Runaways is a case study in attorney ethics. She met her future husband Geoffrey while representing him in jail. She is the mother of Alex Wilder, the teenager who is arguably the glue that holds the teenage “Runaways” together as a team.

Catherine and Geoffrey are members of Pride, a civic group connected to the cult/church Givborim, which conducted ritualistic human sacrifices to prolong the life of Jonah, a supernatural villain. Making matters worse, these sacrifices were done at the Wilder property.

Alex Wilder expressed concern over his mother’s impressive skill as an attorney. However, what are the legal ethical issues with Catherine Wilder participating in human sacrifices as part of a quasi-religious ceremony wearing red robes?

Representation of Geoffrey Wilder while Incarcerated

Catherine met her future husband Geoffrey while he was awaiting trial for murder. After a discussion with Jonah, Geoffrey asked a friend Darius Davis to admit to the murder for which Geoffrey was arrested.

While it was clear Geoffrey was attracted to Catherine, there was no evidence to suggest they had a sexual relationship while Catherine represented Geoffrey. Such representation could have been improper, if it caused Catherine to perform legal services incompetently. Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct, Rule 3-120(B)(3). This rule does not apply to spouses where the relationship predates representation. Rule 3-120(C).

The problem for Catherine is she willingly assisted in a fraud upon the Court in offering Darius Davis as the shooter for Geoffrey’s crime. This is the very essence of an act of “moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption,” which would be cause for disbarment or suspension. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106.

Human Sacrifices are Not Protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege

Catherine Wilder has no way to argue the sacrifices committed on her property are in any way protected by the attorney-client privilege. As a preliminary matter, the California attorney-client privilege states that a client has the right to refuse from disclosing any confidential communications with their attorney. Cal. Evid. Code § 954. This would require Catherine to represent every member of Pride individually, which has significant legal issues as to potential conflicts between Pride members, such as those who had knowledge of another member’s child being killed. Moreover, the attorney-client privilege does not apply if a lawyer’s services were sought to enable or aid anyone to commit a crime. Cal Evid Code § 956(a). As the members of Pride were killing teenagers, there is no way for Catherine to provide legal advice on how to murder children.

Catherine could not argue Pride had any religious freedom to perform the “energy transference” of runaway teenagers in some quasi-religious ceremony for Givborimism. As has been held in case law:

The devotee of a religious cult that enjoins polygamy or human sacrifice as a duty is not thereby relieved from responsibility before the law. In such cases the belief, however false according to our own standards, is not the product of disease. Cases will doubtless arise where criminals will take shelter behind a professed belief that their crime was ordained by God, just as this defendant attempted to shelter himself behind that belief. We can safely leave such fabrications to the common sense of juries.

People v. Schmidt, 216 N.Y. 324, 339-40, 110 N.E. 945, 949-50 (1915), citing Guiteau’s Case, 10 Fed. Rep. 161, 175, 177; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577 at 594; Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U.S. 145; People ex rel. Hegeman v. Corrigan, 195 N. Y. 1, 13.

Killing runaway teenagers is murder. Lawyers are supposed to uphold and defend the Constitutions of the United States and their state, not be willing participants in the deaths of children. The actions of the members of Pride could not hide behind the attorney-client privilege. Catherine should be disbarred for the [fictional] deaths and tried for conspiracy to commit murder.

Lethal Force on Krypton

By
Josh Gilliland
-
0

In the Krypton episode “The Rankless Initiative,” Lyta-Zod has taken the command of the 4th Squad of the Military Guild.

Zod’s troops arrested civilians en mass in a military crackdown in the search for domestic terrorists.

Kol-Da, one of the Sagitari officers, shot a handcuffed civilian under the claim she feared for her safety.

Zod promptly arrested Da for murder, telling her she would have a trial to defend herself, something Da denied the summarily executed prisoner.

It is not surprising a science fiction show is not afraid to tackle the issue of police shooting unarmed prisoners. If Krypton had a Constitution similar to that of the United States, Zod was absolutely correct to arrest Kol-Da for murder.

All people in the United States have a Fourth Amendment right to be free of the use of excessive force by the police. The use of lethal force is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, because taking a life is a “seizure.” As such, the test for whether a reasonable officer may use deadly force is if under the totality of the circumstances, the officer “had probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to [himself] or to others.” McHenry v. City of Ottawa, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157369, at *16 (D. Kan. Sep. 26, 2017).

There is also a larger issue: the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 1701 (1985).

Kol-Da claimed she feared for her safety as the reason to shoot a “Rankless.” The fact the person was unarmed and handcuffed clearly shows her actions were unreasonable, because there was no threat of serious physical harm. Moreover, the victim was a prison who was not even trying to escape, let alone arrested for any “felony” other than being Rankless. There was no probable cause for a reasonable belief the prisoner was a danger to others. Murdering him was a gross violation of his civil rights.

Lyta-Zod was justifiably enraged by the conduct of Kol-Da and right to arrest her. Whether a future episode include the trial of the officer remains to be seen.

Does the Insanity Defense Apply to Attempted Human Genocide?

By
Josh Gilliland
-
0

Treason is too light a word to describe Dr. Newton Geiszler’s plan to destroy humanity in Pacific Rim Uprising. The issue for Dr. Geiszler is whether the his attorneys could successfully argue the insanity defense. The Kaiju in the room is whether the good Doctor was under the control of “Alice” or if his recreational Kaiju brain drifting was done by his own free will. The answer would determine if Geiszler did not understand the wrongfulness of his actions, thus not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty.

Dr. Newton Geiszler planned the destruction of humanity by using Jäger drones fused with cloned Kaiju brains to open multiple breaches to allow for a Kaiju invasion of Earth. Phase two of the plan was to ignite the Ring of Fire to cause an extinction level event.

Dr. Geiszler collaborated with hostile aliens that resulted in the massive property damage in Tokyo. Geiszler could be charged with collaboration, treason, and attempted genocide.

The insanity defense requires the defense to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Geiszler was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his actions because of a severe mental disease or defect. 18 U.S.C.S. § 17. It should go without saying that hijacking building-sized robots to open an inter-dimensional portal for giant monsters to destroy all of humanity is a “wrongful act” that Dr. Geiszler should have understood.

The issue for Dr. Geiszler is whether he suffered from a mental defect due to his Kaiju drifting; if he was addicted to drifting with Alice; or if he purposely acted to destroy humanity.

Mental Defect from Drifting

The Defense could argue that Dr. Geiszler suffered brain damage from drifting with Alice, thus he could not understand the wrongfulness of destroying humanity. This would require expert testimony to explain how drifting works, how there is access to memories of both individuals, and how one can get lost in the drift. In the Defense’s favor is the fact Alice is the brain of an alien monster. An MRI could show the impact of drifting with Alice on Dr. Geiszler and possible brain damage. Moreover, Dr. Geiszler’s spooky Kaiju voice could be medical evidence of a mental disease from Alice. However, if there is no brain damage from the Kaiju drifting, there are still other options for the Defense.

The more challenging argument is that Alice was exerting some form of mind control over Dr. Geiszler. Cases where defendants attempt to offer expert testimony that a defendant was under the control of a cult, thus could not form the required mental intent for a crime, usually end with the expert’s testimony being excluded. See, People v. Vieira, 35 Cal. 4th 264, 266, (2005). The reason this sort of testimony is barred, is because the alleged mental disease would go the issue of the defendant’s mental intent, which is prohibited under California law. See, Vieira v. Chappell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14130, at *340-41 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2015), citing Cal. Penal Code § 28. This is different than a defendant not understanding the wrongfulness of his actions due to a mental disease, because intent goes to an element of a crime, not capacity to understand the act is wrong.

The issue of whether someone can be a victim of “mind control” is not one with case law helpful to Dr. Geiszler. In the writ of habeas corpus by the murderer of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the Court analyzed the murderer’s claim of “hypnotic programming.” The Court noted that the theory someone could be hypnotized to commit murder and then to lose his or her memory of committing that murder was scientifically credible, but the petitioner did not provide any reliable evidence that actually happened. Sirhan v. Brazelton (C.D.Cal. 2013) 76 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1123-1124. In the case of Dr. Geiszler, evidence would need to be offered that the “hypnotic programming” caused him to design and build one rogue Jäger; design drone Jägers programmed to launch an alien invasion; hundreds of DNA splicing micro-Kaiju; and wage war on humanity.

Not the easiest defense.

Addicted to Drifting

The Defense could argue that Dr. Geiszler had become addicted to drifting with Alice as a form of the insanity defense. Drug addiction can be argued as a form of the insanity defense if the drug addiction had 1) destroyed the defendant’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong; or 2) has made him act under a delusional compulsion. Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1120 n.19 (11th Cir. 2000), citing Shirley v. State, 149 Ga. App. 194, 253 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1979). Drug addiction can also be a “psychiatric disorder” that can justify the involuntary commitment of “mentally ill” persons. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 722-23, (1972).

Medical expert testimony would be need to be offered to demonstrate Dr. Geiszler either had his ability to know right from wrong destroyed from recreational Kaiju drifting or was acting under a delusional compulsion. Considering Dr. Geiszler went home, talked to a giant brain in a jar in his bedroom he named Alice before drifting, “delusional compulsion” sounds like a good argument. Moreover, the fact the Defendant secretly built a drone army with cloned Kaiju brains would take obsessive-compulsive behavior to a new level.

World on Fire

There is the possibility that Dr. Geiszler knew right from wrong and simply turned evil. This is most disturbing possibility, because it would mean that a hero turned into a villain. Eradicating all live on Earth is not something one does lightly. Dr. Geiszler spent ten years on his plan, which included acquiring a Kaiju brain, having a custom tank for it installed in his apartment, and building drift technology so he could commune with Alice. Those look like intentional actions, some of which were either done to develop a connection with Alice or feed an addiction to drifting with Alice.

Defending the an Indefensible Act 

There is no defense for the attempted genocide of humanity. However, that does not mean Dr. Geiszler should be denied a right to an attorney and a fair trial for his actions. The hallmark of a civil society is that the legal system treats anyone accused of a crime with due process of law. Granted, there is a Category 5 amount of evidence against Geiszler, but he deserves his day in court.

1...242526...105Page 25 of 105
Facebook Instagram Linkedin Reddit Twitter Youtube
© The Legal Geeks 2022