Our panel of lawyers offer their legal analysis on each episode of She-Hulk: Attorney at Law.
The Legal Geeks Panel Schedule @ SDCC 2022
We are proudly presenting three panels at San Diego Comic Con 2022, the first SDCC since 2019! Join us as we celebrate our 10th Anniversary with three panels celebrating Jaws, Star Wars, and Marvel movies.
Thursday 7/21/22
7:00PM – 8:00PM Jaws: The Trial – The Town of Amity is being sued by the families of shark attack victims! Was it right for Mayor Vaughn to keep the beaches open after the death of Chrissie Watkins? Was the medical examiner right to change Watkins’s cause of death to a boating accident? Join attorneys Michael Dennis, Mark Zaid, Danna Nicholas, and Kathy Steinman, as they argue before Judge Carol Najera. Featuring Valerie Tosi as Mrs. Kintner and Jeff May as Mayor Vaughn. Presented by The Legal Geeks. Room Grand 12 & 13, Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina.
Friday, 7/22/22
7:00PM – 8:00PM Law of the Star Wars Underworld. From bounty hunters to powerful syndicates and smuggling runs, the seedy criminal underworld of Star Wars isn’t for the faint of heart, but it plays an important role in the galaxy far far away. Have you ever wondered whether Din Djarin could legally carbon freeze his bounties, or if Boba Fett had grounds to demand tribute in Mos Espa? Join our panel featuring Circuit Judge John Owens, Judge Carol Najera, Stephen Tollafield, Christine Peek, and Gabby Martin, as they venture into the Star Wars underworld to explore some of the biggest legal issues, from the complicated business of bounty hunting to the shadowy operations of groups like the Hutts, Pykes, and Crimson Dawn. Moderated by Joshua Gilliland of The Legal Geeks. Room: 7AB
Saturday, 7/23/22
7:00PM – 8:00PM Law and Thunder: Legal Analysis of Thor and Doctor Strange. Who is the true owner of Mjölnir? What is the liability for breaking the multiverse? What are the legal defenses for Wanda of 838 for being possessed by Wanda of 616? And is there a cause of action for Zeus flicking too hard? Join our panel of lawyers for their legal analysis of Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness and Thor: Love and Thunder. Featuring Judge Stan Boone, Jessica Mederson, Gabby Martin, Stephen Tollafield, and Megan Hitchcock. Moderated by Joshua Gilliland of The Legal Geeks. Room: 23ABC
Obi-Wan Kenobi Audio and Video Podcasts
Here is our review of Obi-Wan Kenobi, starting with Episodes I and II recorded at Star Wars Celebration.
Episodes I and II
Episode III
Episode IV
Episode V
Episode VI
Interrogating a Minor Princess of Alderaan
The Inquisitor Reva captured, shackled, and transported Princess Leia of Alderaan from Mapuzo to Nur. Could any information learned from a custodial interrogation of the 10-year old Princess be admissible in court?
Federal law requires that when a juvenile is arrested, the arresting officer “shall immediately” tell the child of their legal rights in language they can understand AND immediately tell the juvenile’s parents, guardian, or custodian, that the child was taken into custody. 18 U.S.C. § 5033.
The “rights” that 18 U.S.C. § 5033 include Miranda. The Miranda opinion was the result of a long line of cases that bars the government from using the statements of a defendant made during a custodial interrogation, to prove the case against the defendant, provided the statements were made before the defendant was told of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney. See, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, at 444 (1966). The goal of this “exclusionary rule” is to prevent unlawful police conduct.
The Miranda Court specifically held:
Accordingly we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead. Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right.
Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 471-472 (U.S. 1966).
Assuming the Galactic Empire has similar laws to 18 U.S.C. § 5033, Leia’s parents clearly had not been notified of Leia’s arrest. Considering that Reva had Leia kidnapped in the first place, it is unlikely Reva is going to start following child protection laws at this point in the story. It is also a safe bet no Miranda rights were given to Leia. As such, nothing learned from interrogating Leia would be admissible in court.
Given the facts that Leia was both in shackles, in an interrogation room, had been transported from one planet to another, it is clear she is being detained. The scene begins with her [rightly] throwing down she was royalty and her father a Senator. Reva’s response to Leia’s “Don’t You Know Who I am” defense was that she had no rights on Nur as a Jedi sympathizer.
Children in custody have Miranda rights just as adults do to protect against self-incrimination and vindicate their right to counsel. Children can waive Miranda rights, but there are specific factors to evaluate. In a denial of a petition to the California Supreme Court, the rules for child waivers are spelled out. The case involved a 10-year old boy who shot and killed his sleeping father. The child was questioned by police, in the living room, with his step-mother present. The questioning was recorded on video.
In order for a Miranda waiver to be valid, it must be “made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” The waiver must be made “with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” In re Joseph H., 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. 2015), citing Moran v. Burbine 475 U.S. 412, 421, (1986).
The following considerations must be given to a juvenile’s waiver: age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and “whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.’ ” In re Joseph H., at *2, citing People v. Nelson 53 Cal.4th 367, 375 (2012).
As Princess Leia is 10 going on 30, she had the intellect and maturity to understand her rights. This is evident from the Princess telling her captor she would tell them nothing, which was within Princess Leia’s right to remain silent.
Reva deciding to torture Leia is a very big Constitutional no-no.
Darth Vader’s Crime Spree on Mapuzo
Darth Vader is scary for a reason: He hurts people. A lot of people. Probably to increase his Force abilities so he can hurt more people.
In Obi-Wan Kenobi episode 3, Darth Vader’s malice for all was on display as he tore through the town on Mapuzo. Vader held a father in the air while Force choking him. When the victim’s son tried to intercede, the boy was Force pushed against the side of the home, and then his neck snapped with the Force. Shortly thereafter, a woman was drug through the dirt street face down by use of the Force.
Here are a few of the crimes Darth Vader committed:
Battery
Darth Vader brutalized the citizens of Mapuzo with the Force. The obvious charge against Vader is Battery, which is “… any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Cal. Pen. Code § 242. Choking people, slamming others against walls, or dragging individuals through the street is a willful and unlawful use of violence against a person. The elements of “battery” are clearly met.
Torture
Did Darth Vader commit Torture of both Victim 1 (the Father) and Victim 3 (Woman drugged through the street)? If California law is applied, Torture is defined as:
Every person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose, inflicts great bodily injury as defined in Section 12022.7 upon the person of another, is guilty of torture.
The crime of torture does not require any proof that the victim suffered pain.
Cal Pen Code § 206.
Darth Vader asked no questions of either of his victims. He inflicted pain and moved on.
Vader’s actions appear to have the “intent to cause cruel and extreme pain.” Case law defines this phrase means to cause extreme or severe pain. People v. Aguilar, 58 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1202 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). Choking the father in the air checks that box; dragging a woman face down through a dirt road is not anyone’s idea of a spa day. The element of extreme pain is met with every bruise, abrasion, and broken bone.
Inflicting pain for the purpose of revenge, extortion, or any sadistic purpose is not clear from the facts. Vader’s acts could have been for the purpose of revenge for Kenobi being given safe harbor in the town, but that is not clear from the facts. There is no evidence of extortion, because there is nothing asked from any of Vader’s victims.
“Sadistic purpose” means the “the infliction of pain on another person for the purpose of experiencing pleasure.” Aguilar, at * 1203-04. It is known that Dark Side users can feed off the feelings of anger or pain. Consider Anakin Skywalker confronting Chancellor Palpatine, where the future Emperor stated, “I can feel your anger. It makes you stronger, gives you focus.” Palpatine’s expression is one of ecstasy…very creepy ecstasy.
Was Vader’s harming others to power up with a contact high of fear before confronting Kenobi? If the answer is “yes,” then the elements of torture have been met.
Murder
Darth Vader snapped the neck of a child coming to his father’s aid while Vader battered the father. This was clearly murder. California law defines Murder as “…the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” Cal. Pen. Code § 187(a). Malice aforethought is “express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature.” Cal. Pen. Code § 188(a)(1).
The killing of the son was unlawful. Even humoring the idea that Darth Vader represented law enforcement, the son did nothing to threaten Vader. Moreover, there is no argument that Force choking someone “just cause” is a lawful act for a state actor that would give a colorable argument that the son was interfering with a police action. There was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to give any indication of wrongful conduct by the father. He was simply a victim in Vader’s way. The child died because he had the audacity to try to help his father.
The element of malice aforethought is met because using the Force to kill someone is a manifested deliberate act to take a life. Vader did exactly that.
What to Know Before Adopting a Princess in Star Wars
We learned in the Obi-Wan Kenobi series that Leia Organa had a brat for a first cousin. The behavior was likely learned behavior from Leia’s uncle, who was more interested in making a profit than social issues like ending slavery. Going for the ancient insult of “you’re adopted,” the cousin told Leia she was not a real Organa.
Bail Organa gave his daughter a pep talk after the incident by telling her, “You are an Organa in every way.”
Bail Organa is legally correct.
Adoption is a very complex set of procedures that focus on reunification with biological parents and not separating siblings, to highlight a few of the policy goals. Once an adoption has been codified, the child takes on the family name of the adoptive parents. As my Wills and Trusts professor described the process, it is like the blood of the parents are grafted onto the child for all legal rights.
When it comes to the issue of inheritance from parents, it is established law that “the adopted child had rights of inheritance in the estate of his adoptive parents only, he being granted all of the rights of a natural child with reference thereto, but that by the adoption, his rights of inheritance from or through his natural parents were severed and terminated.” Estate of Garey, 214 Cal.App.2d 39, 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963).
There is likely a gap in paperwork for Leia’s adoption, since Princess Leia’s birth would be a state secret on Alderaan. One option for explaining a missing document such as a birth certificate, could be if there was a Galactic Safe Surrender Baby Law. Such laws allow for a mother to surrender a child confidentially to a hospital without fear of prosecution for child abandonment. Another is the fact there would be a large number of Clone Wars orphans who lost their parents (such as Din Djarin). Either would be a plausible cover story for Leia’s existence without raising suspicions on her biological parentage.
Leia is an Organa under the eyes of the law. Bail Organa is absolutely correct Leia was an Organa in every way.
The Necessity Defense in Strange New Worlds
Star Trek Strange New Worlds is a return to live action episodic storytelling in the Star Trek franchize. The first episode embraced Trek’s heritage of taking on complex issues in the reflection of science fiction. In the story, the pre-warp civilization of Kiley 279 was on the brink of civil war. The ruling nation-state developed weapons of mass destruction after observing the battle seen in the season two finale of Star Trek Discovery. Their plan was to obliterate the “revolutionary” faction with a “Warp Bomb.” Or “Warp Bombs.”
Captain Christopher Pike found himself in a bind with General Order Number One, which prohibits interfering in the development of civilizations without warp drive. The fact Kiley 279 had learned of warp technology from a battle the Federation had covered up, meant there had already been “cultural contamination.” However, General Order Number One technically prohibited the USS Enterprise crew from correcting the cultural contamination.
Captain Pike’s solution? He told his First Officer, “Screw General Order Number One.” In a homage to classic science fiction films, he asked, “Take me to your leader,” after being captured. Pike talked down the warring factions with a history lesson from Earth of Kiley 279’s possible future with war. More importantly, he inspired them to reach for a brighter future to join the Federation of Planets.
If there was a Starfleet JAG officer preparing a defense for Captain Pike, the best option is the necessity defense, which is an affirmative defense to a crime. Captain Pike 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.” State v. Rein, 477 N.W.2d 716, 717 (Minn. App. 1991).
The test for the necessity defense in California (assuming Starfleet Command followed similar factors in its Code of Military Justice) has the following elements:
1. Captain Pike acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to Kiley 279;
2. Captain Pike had no adequate legal alternative;
3. The defendant’s acts did not create a greater danger than the one avoided;
4. When the defendant acted, he actually believed that the act was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil;
5. A reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances; AND
6. The defendant did not substantially contribute to the emergency.
CALCRIM No. 3403.
Applying the elements to Captain Pike’s actions, an attorney could argue:
1) Captain Pike acted to avoid a planetary war;
2) The legal remedy was to let the people of Kiley 279 kill each other with Warp Bombs;
3) Captain Pike’s actions did not create a more dangerous situation;
4) Captain Pike believed his actions would avoid a war;
5) A reasonable person would believe Captain Pike’s actions were necessary; and
6) Captain Pike did not contribute to the emergency.
Openly breaking the law is never a good plan. It should not be standard operating procedure. However, Star Trek has a precedent for showing how the needs of the many can sometimes require finding legal exceptions to complex problems. Stopping a nuclear holocaust is one such exception.