Darth Vader’s Crime Spree on Mapuzo

By

-

June 12, 2022

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

By

Josh Gilliland

-

May 31, 2022

0

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.

Strict Liability for a Rancor Rampage

By

Josh Gilliland

-

May 4, 2022

0

Boba Fett’s pet rancor turned the Battle of Mos Espa against the Pykes, however, the “little” guy got loose from Boba Fett. Would the Mighty Daimyo be financially on the hook for all the property damage?

The short answer is “yes,” dependent on any sovereign immunity defenses for a crime lord. As a baseline, “One who keeps wild animals on his premises must see to it at his peril that they do no damage to others.” Hyde v. Utica, 20 N.Y.S.2d 335, 337 (App. Div. 1940). Moreover, “[A] wild animal is presumed to be vicious and since the owner of such animal…is an insurer against the acts of the animal to anyone who is injured…” Baugh v. Beatty, 91 Cal. App. 2d 786, 791, 205 P.2d 671 (1949).

As seen in the episode, “In the Name of Honor,” Boba Fett brought his unnamed rancor to assist in the battle with the Pykes. For the sake of humanizing the creature, he will be referred to as “Harryhausen.” The emotionally complex Harryhausen would be considered a wild animal, because a “wild animal” is a creature not normally domesticated, such a pet kept in a home for pleasure rather than commercial purposes. See, Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2116 and Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 50466. Moreover, “Wild animals” do not cease to be “wildlife simply because they or their progeny are no longer found in the wild.” U.S. v. Condict, No. CR-05-004-SPS, at *6 (E.D. Okla. June 27, 2006), citing 16 U.S.C. § 3371(a).

There is an argument that Harryhausen is domesticated, because Boba Fett rode him to Mos Espa from the Palace. Horses are considered domestic animals. Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 446, 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). However, this argument might be as effective as claiming an Orca who does tricks is “domesticated.”

While it is clear that Harryhausen might be a snuggly beast who likes to cuddle, he also eats Pykes whole. Even if he were considered domesticated, Harryhausen would be in the inherently dangerous category, such as some breeds of dogs. In such a situation, the test for strict liability is the “harm done by a domestic animal with known vicious or dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.” Drake v. Dean, 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 921 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).

It is common knowledge that rancors can make smaller lifeforms bite sized snacks. For Boba Fett, the fact Harryhausen went on a rampage destroying at least one speeder and smashed several buildings is grounds for him to pay out credits for any property damage.

Could Baba Fett get insurance to cover damages by Harryhausen? Probably not, but most insurance carriers in Star Wars likely went insolvent after the Clone Wars.

Book of Boba Fett Video and Podcast Series

By

Josh Gilliland

-

January 17, 2022

0

The Book of Boba Fett is a cacophony of legal issues with crime lords, political graft, extortion, and all the joy of Star Wars. Below is our weekly analysis of each episode.

Chapter 1: Stranger in a Strange Land

Chapter 2: The Tribes of Tatooine

Chapter 3: The Streets of Mos Espa

Chapter 4: The Gathering Storm

Chapter 5: The Return of the Mandalorian

Chapter 6: “From the Desert Comes a Stranger”

Chapter 7: “In the Name of Honor”

Prosecuting Jawas for Robbery and Battery of Boba Fett

By

Josh Gilliland

-

January 4, 2022

0

Boba Fett escaped the Sarlacc Pit only to have his armor stripped from his body by Jawas..one of whom smashed an ionization blaster butt against Boba’s face.

There is a lot of things with the Jawas’ actions.

The Jawas Committed Robbery

If the sands of Tatooine had laws similar to California, the elements of robbery are easily met for the vexus Jawas. Robbery is defined as follows:

“Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.”

Cal. Pen. Code § 211.

Boba Fett was injured with acid burns after being in the Sarlacc’s stomach. In his weakened state, Jawas discovered him and began removing his body armor. One of them struck him when he resisted. The body armor was Boba Fett’s personal property that was literally on his body. The Jawas took it from him against his will. Smashing Boba Fett’s face with a rifle butt is the textbook definition of “force.” All the elements are met for convicting the Jawas of robbery.

The Jawas Committed Battery of Boba Fett

Battery is “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Cal. Pen. Code § 242. The Jawa who struck Boba Fest with the ionization blaster butt committed a willful and unlawful use of violence upon Boba Fett.

There is the legal maxim that members of a criminal conspiracy are liable for each act of the conspiracy if it was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. In re Thompson, B270387, at *8-9 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2017).

The Jawas had a criminal conspiracy to take Boba Fett’s armor from his person. The Jawa who struck Boba Fett did so in furtherance of taking his armor. As taking his armor was the goal of the conspiracy, all the Jawas in the conspiracy would be liable for the battery.

Attempted Murder of Boba Fett

The Jawas robbers and battered Boba Fett before leaving him to die in the desert. Was that enough to convict them of attempted murder?

Murder is the “unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” Cal. Pen. Code § 187(a). First Degree Murder includes a murder that was committed in the perpetration of a robbery. Cal. Pen. Code § 189(a). A person can be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime. Cal. Pen. Code § 663.

If Boba Fett had died in the sand after being robbed and battered by Jawas, they could be charged with First Degree Murder. However, the fact he survived means there was not a death while being robbed. As such, the elements to elevate a robbery to murder are not met. Consider a case from Louisiana, which is not the Dagobah of the United States, but does offer helpful analysis:

A specific intent to kill is an essential element of the crime of attempted second degree murder. A specific intent to inflict great bodily harm is sufficient to find a defendant guilty of murder if the victim dies, but is not sufficient to find him guilty of the attempt if the victim survives. In such a case, the defendant’s intent to inflict great bodily harm would be sufficient only to find him guilty of a battery .

State v. Latiolais, 453 So. 2d 1266, 1268-69 (La. Ct. App. 1984), citing State v. Butler,322 So.2d 189 (La. 1975).

What was the specific intent of the Jawa? If the intent was only to cause harm, the most he could be charged with is battery. However, a prosecutor could argue the intent was to kill based on the circumstances of the encounter: Boba Fett was found severely injured; he offered resistance to having his armor taken from him; he was struck in the face, and then left to freeze in the night or be cooked under the twin suns of Tatooine.

That sounds like an intent to kill.

Bad Batch Episode Podcast Series

By

Josh Gilliland

-

August 3, 2021

0

The Bad Batch has been a joy to watch each week with excellent storytelling in the best tradition of Star Wars animation. It has also given us a reason to podcast about each episode (or two). Below are all of our podcasts and livestreams on this great series.

https://youtu.be/T8xZ1VFp8n8

https://youtu.be/vYU059Wyh24

SDCC @ Home with The Legal Geeks and The Mandalorian

By

Josh Gilliland

-

July 10, 2021

0

Nari Ely and I had the privilege of moderating our virtual San Diego Comic Con panel “This is the Law: Judges on the Mandalorian.” The panel went live on July 24, 2021 at 400 pm PDT. Our panel of Judges included Comic Con veterans Circuit Judge John B. Owens, US Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman, and New York State Judge Matthew Sciarrino.

Here is a full description of our panel:

Bounty hunting is a complicated profession. That is why lawyers geeked out over all of the legal issues in The Mandalorian. Can bounty hunters use lethal force? Is it murder to shoot a Droid or destruction of property? Are former Imperials all war criminals? Find the legal answers to these questions and more in This is the Law, featuring Circuit Judge John B. Owens (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals); U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman; Judge Matthew Sciarrino (New York State Supreme Court, Criminal Term Brooklyn), and moderated by Nari Ely (US Courts) and Joshua Gilliland (Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally LLP). Presented by The Legal Geeks: https://linktr.ee/thelegalgeeks

I have spoken.