Interrogating a Minor Princess of Alderaan

June 13, 2022

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

Josh Gilliland

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

Josh Gilliland

May 31, 2022

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

Josh Gilliland

May 10, 2022

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.

Strict Liability for a Rancor Rampage

Josh Gilliland

May 4, 2022

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.

WonderCon 2022 Panel Recordings

Josh Gilliland

March 21, 2022

We had a blast at WonderCon 2022. It was extremely healing to see some friends who I had not seen in person since 2019. We had a great time discussing the legal issues in Peacemaker and Star Trek in our two panels.

Law of Peacemaker

Law of Star Trek

Desecration of a Corpse in Ultraman

Josh Gilliland

March 6, 2022

The original Ultraman series introduced “The Monster Graveyard,” in the episode of the same name in 1967 (season 1, episode 35). The premise is that there is a realm in space where the souls of Kaiju defeated by any of the Ultra Warriors go for their eternal rest. This rest is hard earned, as many of the Kaiju are mutilated by Ultraman in battle.

The story followed a test flight of a rocket that entered the Monster Graveyard and returned to Earth with the soul of the Kaiju named Seabozu. This raises the issue, did the rocket entering the graveyard, colliding with Seabozu, and bringing his soul back to Earth, amount to desecration of a corpse?

This is problematic, since corpses do not cry out in agony if disturbed [recognizing that every haunted house story might beg to differ].

The definition of desecration of a corpse varies across the United States and international law. International Humanitarian Law follows the long held rule that “Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited.” See, Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead. This is based off many treaties, including the 1907 Hague Convention (X).

State law uses different descriptions, but the theme is the same: leave dead bodies alone. For example, Mississippi law states:

Every person who shall knowingly and willfully dig up, except as otherwise provided by law, obliterate, or in any way desecrate any cemetery where human dead are interred, or cause through word, deed or action the same to happen, shall upon conviction be imprisoned for not more than one (1) year in the county jail or fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or both, in the discretion of the court. In addition to any penalties that the court is otherwise authorized to impose the court may, in its discretion, order such restitution as it deems appropriate.

Miss. Code § 97-29-25(1)(a).

Texas has similar prohibitions, stating that “abuse of a corpse” is “intentionally or knowingly disinters, disturbs, removes, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in a seriously offensive manner a human corpse.” TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. Sec. 42.10(a)(1) (Vernon 1989). Mclain v. State, 831 S.W.2d 815, 818 (Tex. App. 1992).

Alabama also follows these legal protections with their extensively defined law, which states:

Any person who willfully or maliciously injures, defaces, removes, or destroys any tomb, monument, gravestone, burial mound, earthen or shell monument containing human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts, or other structure or thing placed or designed for a memorial of the dead, or any fence, railing, curb, or any enclosure for the protection or ornamentation of any tomb, monument, gravestone, burial mound, earthen or shell monument containing human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts, or other structure before mentioned, or for any enclosure for the burial of the dead, or any person who willfully and wrongfully or maliciously destroys, removes, cuts, breaks, or injures any tree, shrub, plant, flower, decoration, or other real or personal property within any cemetery or graveyard shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Ala. Code § 13A-7-23.1(a)

Was Seabozu removed from his grave? Yes. There is no doubt his remains were distributed. However, that does not mean the space agency is legally responsible, because all of the state legal examples require that the desecration be done knowingly. The scientists had no knowledge of the “Monster Graveyard,” so there was no intent to bring Seabozu back to Earth. Moreover, that would be a strange project for any government or private actor to fund. Furthermore, even if the rocket launch was done recklessly, that is not the standard, because even that presumes there would be knowledge of a foreseeable risk of hitting the soul of a Kaiju. Furthermore, all of the laws at issue require the corpse to be that of a human being, so there is a Kaiju size technicality for applicability.

The only cause for possible legal jeopardy comes in the form of a war crime for mutilating a body or have a human requirement. There is no stated intent requirement, but mutilations do not happen by accident. Someone is taking an affirmative act to mutilate a corpse.

Even considering all of the above, the Science Patrol and the space agency were right to return Seabozu back to the Monster Graveyard. This episode was one of the few times where a Kaiju was seen as suffering and the Science Special Search Party sought to right the wrong done to the spirit.

1...345...104 Page 4 of 104