Home Blog Page 38

Are Human Sacrifices Protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege?

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

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?

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.

Sedition on Krypton

0

Superman’s Great-Great-Grandfather Val-El was sentenced to death for sedition in the pilot of Krypton. Val-El’s “crime” was stating that there was other life in the universe. Val-El walked a plank to free-fall into a snowstorm of oblivion. His family was also stripped on status, showing a legal system that issued punishments based on family associations and not actions.

The legal system on Krypton is the opposite of “truth, justice, and the American Way.” The show depicts a harsh police state where the population lives under the heel of repression. By way of comparison, Sedition laws in the United States can easily run in opposition to the First Amendment. The original Sedition Act in 1798 allowed for the punishment of those who made “false, scandalous and malicious writings against the government, either house of Congress or the President, if published with intent to defame any of them or to excite against them the contempt or hatred of the people.” Chicago v. Tribune Co., 307 Ill. 595, 603, 139 N.E. 86, 88 (1923). This did not last long and ensured John Adams would be a one term President.

There have been other Sedition laws over the centuries, such as the Smith Act, which was intended to protect the government from violence, revolution, and terrorism. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 501, 71 S. Ct. 857, 863 (1951). Moreover, for those in the military, it is punishable by death to create a revolt to overthrow the government. 10 U.S.C.S. § 894.

Val-El’s “speech” that there was other life in the universe would not even violate the Unconstitutional language of the Sedition Act of 1798, because the position does not even rise to the level of “false, scandalous and malicious writings.” Moreover, Val-El was not advocating the violent overthrow of the government on Krypton. Val-El was murdered by the state for having a belief that was in conflict with religious leaders, which is not a capital offense.

Val-El’s execution would have violated the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The law prohibits executions that:

1) Presents a substantial risk that a prisoner will suffer unnecessary and wanton pain in an execution;

2) Violates the evolving standards of decency that mark a mature society, and

3) Minimizes physical violence and mutilation of the prisoner’s body.

State v. Mata, 275 Neb. 1, 48, 745 N.W.2d 229, 266 (2008).

Walking a plank that ended with Val-El falling hundreds, if not thousands of feet, would violate all three tenants on the prohibition of cruel executions. Nothing about that execution method is remotely decent of a mature society, would result in Val suffering unnecessary plain, and maximized physical violence and mutilation with death by impact. That form of execution was solely designed as a deterrent for anyone who dared to challenge the state.

Krypton depicts a police state with a repressive legal system that runs counter to our own. How Kal-El’s grandfather leads the planet out of this Dark Age will have this lawyer watching this season.

A World of WonderCon

0

WonderCon 2018 was one of the best cons I have attended since we started The Legal Geeks. The show was very well run, from applying for panels, to registering speakers, and attending the show. The show had excellent panels, a large and well-stocked exhibit hall, and a great sense of fan community.

We had two panels on Friday night: A Star Wars Mock Trial and Lawyers vs Kaiju. Between our panelists and guests, a total of 31 people attended under our flag. I was glad we could provide many geeks the opportunity to go.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Star Wars Mock Trial: Can R2-D2 and C-3PO Sue the Cantina for Discrimination?

Our mock trial was based on the scene in the original Star Wars where the Droids were denied entry into the Mos Eisley Cantina. The Plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction under California law that would require the Cantina to stay open and serve Droids during the pendency of the case. This is a challenging argument, because mandatory injunctions require a change to the status quo, thus are extremely difficult to obtain. The procedural setting for the case was a hearing on a motion for disputed facts for the injunction, which allowed both sides to call witnesses.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The core issue for the Droids was whether they are “persons” under the law and a protected class. Public accommodation laws do not allow for restaurants or bars to deny service to anyone based on their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. However, artificial life is not listed in the Unruh Act. This was the crux of the case for the Plaintiffs, to prove Droids are “persons” under the law.

Keri Bean from NASA JPL was a court appointed neutral expert who testified as a fictionalized character who was a Mission Operations Engineer at the Mon Cala Propulsion Laboratory. Keri built her own R2-D2 with her husband and is a member of the R2 Builders Club. The Droid was on hand for the hearing.

A few minutes before we began our mock trial.

Ian Gregory Cook is the Commander of the Rebel Legion Sunrider Base, one of the very active Star Wars costume clubs in Southern California. Ian played the role of the Bartender Wuher. Ian’s witness statement was developed from Chuck Wendig’s “We Don’t Serve Their Kind Here,” chapter in From a Certain Point of View. Ian nailed the role and succeeded in portraying Wuher as being sympathetic from the death of his parents by Droids during the Clone Wars.

The mock trial was a reminder how much people love Star Wars. We filled the room for the hearing. It was also validation that people care about the “law” and how lawyers will fight for the rights of others. Below you can listen to the audio from the mock trial.

Lawyers vs Kaiju

I grew up watching Kaiju movies. I fondly remember watching Gamera vs Gyaos as a kid. Still a little haunted by the final scenes in Son of Kong. It was a joy to have a panel where attorneys could take a deep dive into who pays for Acts of Godzilla.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Matt Weinhold from Monster Party moderated our panel. Matt is an old friend from when my family owned Rooster T. Feathers in Sunnyvale. The panelists included Monte Cooper, who is the grandnephew of Merian C. Cooper, the creator of King Kong; Megan Hitchcock, Esq., trial counsel for Esurance; and Jeraline Singh Edwards, Esq. We had a rocking good time weighing on whether Kong was an Endangered Species, if Gamera had a duty to save children, and if the President would need Congressional approval under the War Powers Act to aid Japan in fighting Godzilla. Below you can view the slides and listen to the audio from the Kaiju panel.

Lawyers_v_Kaiju_Final

The Stand Out Panels 

There were many talented and entertaining panels at WonderCon. One lesson from law school on jury memory retention is that jurors forget 2/3 of what they hear. What they do remember is usually wrong. However, memory retention goes up to 80% if the spoken word is coupled with a demonstrative exhibit. This holds true for panels at cons, because the best way to show a visual medium is to leverage the lessons of visual learning to make an impact on attendees.

Julia Lewald of the X-Men Animated series.

The X-Men Animated Series 25th Anniversary panel did an astonishing job with visual graphics. The panel began with the opening of the original cartoon. The slides and images were used to highlight the message of each speaker. For example, the director had worked in over 200 cameos of other Marvel characters over the life of the show. A single slide was used with six images of those cameos as the director explained how he worked them in for approval. They also included images of each character with the headshot of the voice actor. The end result was…uncanny.

The other panel that used images very successfully was Jack Kirby’s Centennial Artwork Extravaganza. Pages of original artwork silently played while the panel discussed the legacy of Jack Kirby. The Iron Giant Anniversary panel also made great use of imagery, including a sizzle real of the artist’s graphic novel Silver.

Lost in Space Preview 

Netflix’s first episode of Lost in Space was out of this world. Great effects, twists, and complex family dynamics. The first episode has multiple legal issues to explore, which we will cover when the show officially goes live on April 13, 2018. Highly recommend everyone watch the first episode, as they have made something very new while capturing the charm of the original series.

A World of Wonder

WonderCon is now one of my favorite shows. We greatly appreciated the opportunity to present and were humbled by the number of people who attended our panels. I was even stopped by a young man dressed as a Death Eater, who asked if he could take his photo with me. He had seen us before at San Diego Comic Fest. I am glad we are making the law accessible and fun for others.

Popular Tatooine Cantina Hit by Lawsuit from Droids

0

By Suralinda Javos, Outer Rim Bureau Reporter

MOS EISLEY, March 21 – Chalmun’s Cantina, a popular Tatooine watering hole known for serving weary spacefarers and scoundrels alike, has been hit with a major lawsuit in Galactic Federal court. The civil suit was filed jointly by R2-D2, an Industrial Automation R2 astromech unit and C-3PO, a Cybot Galactica 3PO unit.

The droids allege that the Cantina threw them out as they entered the bar with their humanoid companions. Attorneys Christine Peek and Megan Hitchcock of the Corellian Firm Organa, Dodonna, & Ackbar, LLP are representing the droids. After filing the suit, both attorneys publically decried the actions of the Cantina. Speaking to a small crowd gathered outside of the Mos Eisley Galactic Federal courthouse, Attorney Peek declared, “We are honored to represent Artoo and Threepio in this matter and look forward to getting our clients and all droids the justice they deserve—the right to be served just like any other being.”

The Cantina has retained Attorneys Steve Chu and Thomas Harper of the mega Coruscant law firm Palpatine, Vader, and Valorum, P.C. to defend it against the suit. Their firm recently made galactic headlines after defending the Empire against a bevy of lawsuits stemming from the Jedha mining disaster. When reached for comment about the suit, Attorney Chu stated, “These two globs of grease have clearly short circuited. Our firm looks forward to vindicating the Cantina’s interest in serving the patrons of its choice—namely sentient customers who can actually pay for and consume a frosty mug of Jawa Juice.”

The case is of major interest to droid rights advocates, who have long rallied against what they describe as patently unfair and unequal treatment of droids across the galaxy. Similarly, a wide variety of galactic business associations are also closely watching the case, which could lead to monumental changes in business practices.

Kier Beam, a renowned galactic droid expert, will testify on behalf of the plaintiff droids, while bartender Wuher, will testify for the Cantina. The case will be heard before the Galactic Federal Judge Stacie Beckerman, who has docketed the case for March 23, 2018 at 5:00p.m. in courtroom 207.

Coming to WonderCon 2018? Join The Legal Geeks as we present the mock trial of R2-D2 & C-3PO v. The Cantina! The mock trial will be held on Friday, March 23rd at 5:00p.m. in Room 207 at the Anaheim Convention Center. Attorneys will argue their respective cases before a real judge as the fate of the droids hangs in the balance. Droid lovers and haters are all welcome!

Poe Dameron: Ace Pilot & Resistance Criminal? (Part 2)

0

Poe Dameron, the intrepid Resistance hero, didn’t exactly start off The Last Jedi on the best of terms. In fact, Poe seems to have a hard time grappling with the concept of military authority throughout the entire movie. Poe’s open defiance of Leia’s retreat order would have been enough to put him in deep bantha poodoo. But Poe, not content to stop at just one death penalty crime, decides to lead an uprising against Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo later in the film.

For those in need of a refresher, Poe becomes increasingly frustrated with Admiral Holdo’s leadership as the Resistance flees the First Order fleet. Unable to safely jump to light speed, Holdo keeps the fleet just out of range, but makes no apparent move to escape or engage the threat. After realizing that Holdo has ordered all personnel to evacuate aboard unarmed and unshielded escape craft, Poe decides he’s seen enough. He and several other pilots draw blasters on Holdo and take over the ship.

Poe’s actions stirred up a fierce fan debate in the weeks after the movie. Some fans stood with C-3PO and declared his actions to be an unacceptable mutiny, while others decried Holdo’s leadership and thought it justified Poe’s efforts. Despite my hopes and dreams, we probably won’t get to see a deleted TLJ scene where a Resistance JAG officer analyzes the legality of Poe’s mutiny. That sad omission leaves us to break down his actions amongst ourselves.

Seriously, do NOT give Holdo an excuse to ram a MC-85 star cruiser into you at light speed, because she will do it in a heartbeat.

The Last Jedi represents the very first Star Wars film to mention not one but TWO military crimes specifically by name: mutiny and desertion (you can imagine my beaming smile as I sat in the theater).

Mutiny is a crime unique to the military, with no real parallel in any other criminal code. Generally, a mutiny is a forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority, including a revolt against a superior officer. Both the act of mutinying and the efforts to criminalize it have a long history. Virtually every military on the planet has dealt with mutiny, from Great Britain to the United States. Poe Dameron certainly was no trailblazer in this field, because there has even been a mutiny in space.

Coincidentally, C-3PO said the same exact thing when he reported Poe Dameron to authorities.

For centuries England regulated mutiny through “Articles of War,” which codified military conduct in times of war. Today, the U.S. military regulates mutiny through the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is enforced both in peacetime and wartime.

Mutiny can take several forms under the UCMJ. Under Article 94, mutiny can be committed not through violent means, but also by refusing to obey orders or refusing to perform a duty. Historically, some mutiny codes required that there be some sort of conspiracy amongst more than one service member. That is not the case under the UCMJ, as a single soldier can commit a mutiny under certain circumstances.

Since Poe and Friends™ decided to use blasters in their escapades, we’ll focus on the part of Article 94 involving mutiny through violence. Surprisingly, only two elements need to be satisfied to commit the crime:

(1) That the accused created a violence or disturbance; and

(2) That the accused created the violence with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority.

Unfortunately for Poe, he managed to commit a textbook mutiny during The Last Jedi. As to the first element, Article 94 defines “violence” simply as the exertion of physical force. The Code defines “disturbance” as the interference with a state of peace or order.

Poe might argue that no violence happened because no one shot, touched, or harmed Holdo. While Poe might dodge that part of the statute, his actions undoubtedly caused a disturbance. Drawing down on your superior officers O.K. Corral style in front of an entire landing bay of personnel is one of the purest ways to meet that element. His actions halted the evacuation efforts and prevented a number of superior officers, including Commander D’Acy, from performing their duties.

Little known Star Wars fact: Obi-Wan was also referencing feeling the legal disturbance caused by Poe’s mutiny.

As for the second element, proof would need to exist that Poe intended to create the disturbance to seize and hold military authority by force or without right. Prosecutors sometimes face an uphill battle proving intent because it can be incredibly hard to prove what was going on in someone’s head. Here, Poe wasn’t exactly the galaxy’s most brilliant criminal, as his loud mouth put everyone on notice about exactly what he intended to do.

Poe managed to telegraph his intent long before he drew a blaster on Holdo. While other officers accepted Holdo’s new rightful role as commander, Poe made no secret of his displeasure with her authority, openly questioning her decisions. After realizing Holdo was evacuating personnel, Poe declares that she is a coward and a traitor in front of other personnel. His words collectively establish his displeasure with Holdo, which help prove that he intended to seize military authority from her.

Poe also makes the mistake of openly discussing his plan to take over the bridge in front of C-3PO, AKA the galaxy’s biggest snitch. As if all that weren’t enough, Poe declares exactly what’s on his mind as he seizes control from Holdo (in front of dozens of other witnesses, no less).

Poe Dameron, a newly demoted Captain, was vastly outranked by Vice Admiral Holdo and therefore had no inherent authority to take over the ship. Poe also had no command authority, as Holdo was the rightful successor in command to General Organa. By holding Holdo hostage to take over the Raddus, Poe’s actions therefore absolutely met the second element of the crime.

Leia goes into a coma for all of 5 minutes and Poe goes off and pulls a blaster on her successor.

 

Unfortunately for all the Poe-Bros™ out there, Captain Dameron has little in the way of a defense for his actions. The UCMJ doesn’t allow subordinates to violently overthrow their commanders just because they disagree or don’t like the strategy. Chaos would reign supreme if that sort of thing were allowed in the ranks.

At its core, Poe was upset because Holdo didn’t keep him in the loop on military decision-making like General Organa had done. Based upon very limited information, Poe ultimately jumps to conclusions about her overall plan and its danger to the Resistance. In the real world, subordinates aren’t entitled to all the details of a military operation. Security concerns often demand that information be compartmentalized—the fewer people who know all details of a plan, the less risk to the entire mission.

For all of Poe’s greatness in a cockpit, his actions were incredibly reckless. Holdo kept the details of the evacuation secret for good reason. Serious consequences flowed from Poe’s actions, as the Resistance plan ultimately leaked to the First Order, leading to the destruction of nearly all of their escape craft. Poe may not have liked how Holdo was leading, but that was not a legal defense to his actions.

In the end, Poe is probably in the clear for other reasons. After all, the 8 or so people left in the Resistance are barely enough to fill a space cruiser, much less convene a court-martial. In the absence of true justice, we can assume that Leia delivered another resounding slap and let Chewie issue him a scathing reprimand (in Shyriiwook, of course).