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.
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.
SDCF2018
1 of 30
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
Photo by Craig Chaddock.
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.
“You know, half the organic memories you have are junk.”
Black Mirror is a technology-based, sci-fi miniseries produced by digital entertainment giant, Netflix. The show, which has been labeled “TV’s Magic 8-Ball,”[1] is a collection of self-contained episodes that tackle totally plausible technological advances and the effect those advances have on our world. While many episodes ostensibly take place in the United Kingdom, I will assume that similar technology exists contemporaneously in the United States and analyze various episodes with an eye towards U.S. law.
Only slightly less objectionable than a Bluetooth earpiece.
In the show’s third episode, “The Entire History of You,” we are introduced to a young lawyer, Liam Foxwell, who reviews a job interview through real time video footage displayed on a retinal screen and ostensibly stored in an implanted “grain” behind his ear. Later in the episode, Liam consents to have his memories screened by security agents at the airport and at home, he uses his grain during arguments with his wife to settle disputes, scrutinize body language, and uncover an affair.In this alternate universe, people can elect to be implanted with a digital recording device known as a “grain,” which allows them to review video and audio playback of every moment they experience. Using a handheld remote, memories are shuffled through like episodes on Netflix; they can be encrypted, deleted, or displayed on TV screens. Grains can also be stolen (a process known as “gouging”), we find out, with the stored memories then sold to voyeuristic “millionaire Chinese pervs.” And because the memory recordings in the gouged grain would be lost, new buyers are given 30 years’ worth of backup space to store memories (ostensibly in the Cloud).
Given this ability to definitively resolve any dispute as to who said what, what someone knew, or where someone was at any given time, the implications of such technology are manifest. Police, insurance agencies, and aggrieved parties would assuredly seek discovery of pertinent recordings; leading to issues regarding privacy, government searches or seizures of an individual’s grain, self-incrimination, and the production of evidence. Due in part to the similarity between the grain’s functions and current cell phone technology (in terms of capability and prevalence), the law as it stands is likely sufficient to address the attendant constitutional and privacy rights of U.S. citizens with grains.
I. An Invasion of Privacy
Consider the tech sophistication, I feel like this user interface hasn’t addressed the whoops-I-accidentally sent a ‘redo’ problem.
In a world where almost everyone is automatically recording everything they do and see, anyone a person interacts with (or views) is being recorded by default and the concept of “privacy” is limited. Unlike in the European Union, the “‘right to be forgotten,’ . . . is not recognized in the United States.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 745–46 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Case C–131/12, Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), ECLI:EU:C:2014:616 (May 13, 2014)). Under federal law, “[a]bsent some special circumstance (such as an attorney-client privilege), no right of privacy or other protection attaches to words spoken by one individual to another individual; the speaker assumes the risk that his auditor may repeat the conversation to others.” United States v. Cox, 836 F. Supp. 1189, 1197 (D. Md. 1993). Nor is the government likely to create any. The right to record video or audio, at least “in traditional public fora” is protected under the First Amendment, United States v. Cox, 836 F. Supp. 1189, 1197 (D. Md. 1993), and any attempt by the government to establish content or non-content related restrictions on recording, would be subject to either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, respectively. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 340 (2010); United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).
State law, however, often does provide a right to privacy. Several state constitutions explicitly include such a right. See Alaska Const. art. I, § 22; Cal. Const. art. I, § 1; Wash. Const. art. I, § 7. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A(1), which is a relatively authoritative statement of the common law privacy torts having been adopted by most states, also concludes that “[o]ne who invades the right of privacy of another is subject to liability for the resulting harm to the interests of the other.” Subject to the vagaries of state law, grain recordings of a person’s private life would likely fall under “intrusion upon seclusion” and any post-recording publication of personal, offensive, or misleading recordings could subject the recorder to state law liability.
II. Searches, Seizures, and Arrests
Nothing like having the government look through your entire weekend in Vegas
Next, given the vast amount of illuminating information potentially captured by a grain, the government would surely seek control over grain recordings in criminal prosecutions. For if guilt or innocence could be easily determined by viewing the alleged event unfold in real-time, other evidence would be wholly unnecessary to prosecuting criminals. The Fourth Amendment, however, would still likely provide adequate protections for a person’s grain rights.
The Fourth Amendment provides that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The Supreme Court in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), created a two-part inquiry to examine if the government must obtain a search warrant before searching or seizing a citizen’s a grain. The individual must manifest “a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search,” and society must “willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 (1986). While the first, subjective inquiry would be case specific, it is easy to deduce that a person with a grain stored in their body, which contains every conceivable piece of private data, would subjectively expect their grain’s contents to be private. Under the second, objective inquiry, we can assume that by virtue of an individual’s private control over their own grain and historical privacy of thought, society has recognized that person’s privacy expectation as reasonable. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 565 (1969); Cruzan by Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 342 (1990). In short, because of the internal placement of the grain and the collective magnitude of the information stored on that grain, the Fourth Amendment would require a search warrant for the search or seizure of a grain absent exceptional circumstances.
While many exceptions, such as “exigent circumstances,” are highly fact intensive and cannot be addressed in the abstract, the Search Incident to Arrest (“SITA”) exception can be decided as a matter of law. The Court in Riley v. California134 S. Ct. 2473, 2490 (2014), analyzed the SITA exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in the context of cellular phones. Holding that the exception did not apply, the Court found that cell phones “implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse” in that they contain “a digital record of nearly every aspect of [people’s] lives—from the mundane to the intimate.” Id. Looking at grain technology here, the Court would likely find Riley instructive. Like cell phones, grains store an immense treasure trove of personal, intimate information and also, information on grains cannot be used as a weapon that would threaten an arresting officer’s life. Id. at 2485. And while the possibility of remote wiping was not addressed in the episode, I assume that other technological advances will allow police to take control of a person’s remote, block incoming signals, or make a copy of the data to preserve evidence. Simply put, grains, “[w]ith all they contain and all they may reveal, [would] hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life.’” Id. at 2494–95 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)). An important caveat to note, however, is that like Liam’s interaction with the airport security agent, an individual could consent to have their grain recordings reviewed. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 594 (1990).
III. Compelling Production by Defendant
MRW I realize the police try to get a copy of my grain
Once a person is arrested and a search warrant is obtained, the next question is whether the police could be forced them to turn over their grain’s recordings. The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no “person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” This privilege “protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature.” Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761 (1966).
Relevant here, the status of the law with regards to production of physical items that tend to incriminate a person is unclear. Although the Supreme Court has held that forced production of physical evidence does not implicate the Fifth Amendment, see Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 634–35 (1886), the Court has also recognized that the act of producing the documents may be testimonial to the extent that the act of production concedes “the existence of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the taxpayer,” or because the production serves to authenticate the materials, Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409–10 (1976).
A grain is definitely in possession of the defendant, located within their body, and contains recordings of what the defendant said and observed. Although the recording and any statements made in the recordings would be considered voluntary (at the time of their creation), the production of those recordings would not be voluntary. In the most literal sense, a defendant compelled to produce the grain recordings of what they said would be forced “to disclose the contents of his own mind,” Curcio v. United States, 354 U.S. 118, 128 (1957), which implicates the Self–Incrimination Clause.
A much closer call occurs in the context of arguably non-testimonial grain recordings, such as video of a crime scene or the dimensions of an instrument. Like producing a shirt for the jury’s consideration, see Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252–53 (1910) the “evidence” contained in the grain’s videos could be viewed as real or physical evidence. In those cases, I believe the Court would still find that the defendant is not required to produce his grain recordings because it would constitute compelling of personal testimony (in the form of what was seen), does not fall neatly into the categorical exception for real or physical evidence because it directly implicates the defendant’s control or knowledge of evidence, and is so connected with the defendant’s personal thoughts and actions as to implicate the self-incrimination concerns inherent in the Fifth Amendment’s protection.
IV. Compelling Production By A Third Party
Nothing like having your grain gouged by a broken glass
But what about compelling the production of third party’s grain recordings? Could the police force a witness to a crime to turn over their internal video feed? The answer is very likely, yes. Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 (1973). The Supreme Court has made clear “that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, being personal to the defendant, does not extend to the testimony or statements of third parties called as witnesses at trial.” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 234 (1975). Police informants or undercover agents may also produce their grain recordings, even those containing the surreptitiously-recorded admissions of a defendant, without violating the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 751 (1971).
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(1), the state may use a subpoena to “order the witness to produce” their grain, except under certain circumstances. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699–700 (1974). Although not specifically addressed in the episode, it is also reasonable to assume that a grain stores recordings locally and backs up those recordings online in the Cloud. If the recordings are stored on a remote server, the state would likely still be able to gain access to them through the Stored Communications Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c). And because law enforcement officers may have pertinent grain recordings as well, a defendant may be able to obtain those recordings under state disclosure laws or the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552
V. Conclusion
Grain recordings, which show accurate depictions of an individual’s visual and auditory perceptions, would be invaluable evidence for private litigants, criminal defendants, and the government. Like any technology that makes attaining the actual truth of a matter more easily obtained, however, these recordings would also be protected under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment in criminal proceedings. And while production of grain recordings would likely be routine in civil matters, criminal defendants would still have adequate protections against self-incrimination to limit the government’s ability to obtain those recordings. Good thing you don’t have to worry about this tech, right?
[1] G. Clay Whittaker, ‘Black Mirror’ Is TV’s Magic 8-Ball, The Daily Beast (Feb. 21, 2018 3:07 PM), https://www.thedailybeast.com/black-mirror-is-tvs-magic-8-ball (“It becomes difficult to discuss the impact and predictions of dystopian programs a few years after they’re created. At some point the conversation has to switch from ‘will they be right’ to ‘are they right.’ In many aspects Black Mirror was early in capturing certain aspects of life that have become familiar to us since.”).
Canada. Oh Canada. As Canadians, we have gained a reputation for welcoming refugees. In the movie Logan, we see how Laura aka X-23 and the mutant children flee to Canada from a dystopian United States where mutants are persecuted. But what would actually happen if these mutants were to all of a sudden show up at the Canadian border seeking asylum as American refugees?
Crossing the Border and Making a Refugee Claim
We’ll start with the assumption that the children’s contact in Canada intends for them to legally claim asylum. At the Canada Border Services Agency office where the children would report to and make their refugee claims, officials would do background checks on the children, take prints and biometric data. Since they’re minors, they could become wards of the state or the people who helped them cross the border might be able to apply for guardianship.
They would then have to fill out the requisite paperwork to make their refugee claims, according to Kathy Drouin-Carey, a Canadian lawyer who practises in the area of refugee claims in Canada. Drouin-Carey believes that these mutant children would make their applications on both grounds of protection available under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act being a “Convention refugee” (in reference to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees) and a “Person in need of protection”. Below is an excerpt of those provisions in the Act [my emphasis added]:
Sections 96 and 97, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada)
“Arguably, the children would qualify under reasons of race or membership in a particular social group,” says Drouin-Carey. For reasons of race, “I would say that the mutants could claim they are being persecuted due to ‘race’ because they were born with the mutant genes in their DNA.” Although genes do not define “race”, mutants’ genetic differences from ordinary humans do make them distinct. As for being a member of a particular social group, mutants are an identifiable group being persecuted in the U.S., so Drouin-Carey believes this enumerated group could apply to these mutant children as well.
The “Person in need of protection” ground under Section 97 is a much more personal ground and Drouin-Carey believes that there would be merit for the mutant children claiming on this ground as well because, “Staying or returning to the United States would subject them to danger, risk to their lives and possibly to cruel and unusual punishment.” Further, we can infer from Logan that, “the mutants are not able to seek protection from the state (i.e. government) and the risk is not to everyone else in the U.S. And from what we know, they’re at risk everywhere in the U.S.”
Refugee Protection Division and Criminality
After submitting their paperwork, the children would have to get past the Refugee Protection Division, which is an administrative tribunal and the division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada that hears and decides claims for refugee protection.
“One of the biggest hurdles they would have to pass is whether the children would be inadmissible based on criminality”, says Drouin-Carey. In Logan, we saw how Laura killed many times over in brutal fashion and how the children together killed at least one Transigen thug near the end of the movie. Let’s then assume that the U.S. government has labelled Laura and the other children as extremely dangerous because they have mutant abilities and have killed, even though they have not been convicted for their alleged crimes. Let’s also assume that this information has been shared with the Canadian government.
Under Section 36 of the Act, the Refugee Protection Division may have grounds to deem the children as inadmissible based on having committed a criminal or serious criminal act outside of Canada that would be indictable offences in Canada. “The tribunal wouldn’t even need a conviction, it looks like they’d just need some evidence of ‘committing an act’ of criminality,” says Drouin-Carey. Counsel for the children might be able to make submissions to justify or excuse the alleged killings based on, among other things, self defence and age (all of them appear under 16 years old).
Whoever is helping the mutants cross the border hopefully has legal counsel or has funding for legal counsel to assist the children complete their claim forms and represent them before the Refugee Protection Division, especially given the element of criminality that would likely pose a challenge for their claims. If they don’t, then the children might be able to apply for legal aid.
To add complexity to this, Laura may also have a colourable claim to Canadian citizenship which could possibly aid her refugee claim or perhaps bypass it altogether.
Conclusion
While Canada may have made itself known as welcoming to refugee claimants, we don’t just let anyone in who arrives at the border. These processes and bureaucracy are in place to protect the country and its citizens, while balancing it against our humanity to protect people fleeing persecution and danger. Even mutants.
Special thanks to Kathy Drouin-Carey from Edmonton, Alberta-based firm Insight Law LLP for her time spent with me being interviewed for this post.
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.
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.
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.
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.
