Home Blog Page 40

Comic Con The Final Frontier

0

“Awe inspiring” is the best way to describe our second appearance at San Diego Comic Con. Our Star Trek panel brought together the most talented speakers I have ever moderated. I thank all of them for joining the adventure to discuss Star Trek and Supergirl at Comic Con.

Jess_Josh_StarTrek_SDCC_PodcastStar Trek is one of the greatest loves of my life.  From the tearful car ride home after Wrath of Khan, to watching Deep Space Nine in college, or Voyager in law school, I have always stood a little taller whenever I hear, “Space, the final frontier.” It was an honor to have a small part in celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek with our panel, “Star Trek: Where Lawyers Boldly Go.”

SDCC_StarTrek_Where_Lawyers_Boldly_Go

Comic Con is a lot like V’Ger: Huge. There are around a dozen panels an hour from 10am to 8pm (a few even later). There are contests, photo opts, and of course, the Exhibit Hall. There is no shortage of things to do. Here are some of our moments:

Star Trek: Where Lawyers Boldly Go

California Supreme Court Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Neel Chatterjee, Christine Peek, Paul Grewal, Megan Hitchcock, and Jessica Mederson, all had amazing legal analysis of the different trial episodes in Star Trek.

Christine Peek prepared a mind map connecting the different trial episodes. A huge thank you to special effects wizard Jesse Toves, who prepared a Star Trek themed mind map for our agenda.

Mind-Map-drawing-2Mind-Map-drawing-2Christine Peek’s material on Judgment could be used to teach a trial advocacy class. Christine covered everything from the duty of competency to how she would cross-examine Duras. We’ll post her material in a future blog post.

SDCC_Neel_Megan_6122SDCC_Neel_Megan_6122

Neel Chatterjee prepared amazing case summaries and legal analysis. Neel also wore his love of Star Trek on his sleeve, presenting in full Starfleet Wrath of Khan era uniform.

SDCC_Grewal_Cuellar_6061

Justice Cuellar is an extremely inspiring individual. He spoke on watching Star Trek as a young boy in Mexico on his grandmother’s black and white TV set. The Justice then shared his thoughts on how the Prime Directive has been applied throughout the series and movies. Justice Cuellar and Paul Grewal’s analysis of Measure of a Man was masterful on equal protection and artificial intelligence. The Justice also identified his favorite starship as the USS Voyager, because it is “svelte, sleek design, smart, fast, incredibly resilient, and wasted little space.”

SDCC_Jessica_Cuellar_6105

Nearly 400 people attended our Star Trek panel. There were approximately 100 to 150 people who identified themselves as attorneys. One attendee in a Darth Vader dress introduced herself as a California Judge in Compton. There is no question that long before many attorneys and judges practiced law, they grew up watching Star Trek.

SDCC_Megan_Paul_6084

Paul Grewal explaining the similarities between the Klingon legal system and the United States. 

Jimmy Olsen Asks the Tough Questions on Kryptonian Justice

Our second SDCC panel explored the legal issues in Supergirl. My brother Gabe Diani moderated the session as the Golden Age Jimmy Olsen.

SDCC_Supergirl_6184We had a blast discussing whether imprisoning people in the Phantom Zone violates the 8th Amendment, liability for property damage in battling super-villains, and whether Supergirl’s super hearing could subject her to an invasion of privacy claim.

SDCC_Supergirl_0330SDCC_Supergirl_6184Thank you to all of our panelists and attendees. Our slides are available below.

Kryptonian_Law_Supergirl

Celebrating the Forrest J. Ackerman Centennial

Famous Monsters is pulling out all the stops to honor the first cosplayer and the man who coined the phrase “sci fi”: Forrest J. Ackerman.SDCC_FM_6255SDCC_FM_6255

FM had an all-star panel honoring “Uncle Forry” for his 100th birthday. Legends shared their memories of Ackerman, including Bjo and John Trimble, the couple who ran the “Save Star Trek” campaign. Without their campaign, there would not have been a third season of Star Trek, which would have resulted in the show never being syndicated. The Trimbles also met under Ackerman’s grand piano, which is its own unique story.SDCC_StarTrek_Saviors_6269

Bjo and John Trimble.
Bjo and John Trimble.

Memorable Panels

There were many great panels, including a tribute to Jack Kirby, one with the Women of Marvel, Super-Hero Therapy, and out-of-this-world Star Trek panels with NASA and the Smithsonian. I was extremely surprised to find out the official Jack Kirby biographer was the jury foreman at our Mock Trial of the Winter Soldier.

SDCC_Janina_6277

Dr. Janina Scarlet at the Super-Hero Therapy panel. 

It’s “Legal Research” 

San Diego Comic Con was an excellent opportunity to pick up props for future blog posts. I am ready for Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Doctor Strange, and other upcoming releases. I was especially impressed with the t-shirts from Red Chapter and will feature them in the fall.

SDCC_Megan_Hoth_6005Braving long lines for a purchase is always a reason to celebrate. 

Always a Monster Party

No Comic Con is complete without Monster Party. It was great visiting with my friends Matt Weinhold, Larry Strothe, James Gonis, and Shawn Sheridan. I had a blast joining them for their SDCC recording to talk about our Comic Con adventures.

SDCC_MonsterParty_6284

Yes, James did cosplay as Jor-El from the 1978 Superman movie.

Make It So 

San Diego Comic Con 2016 was a career milestone. These were the most high profile panels I have ever prepared. I thank all of the attorneys who joined us for the adventure. I look forward to 2017.

SDCC Star Trek and Supergirl CA MCLE

0

Thank you all who attended our San Diego Comic Con panels: Star Trek: Where Lawyers Boldly Go and Jimmy Olsen Asks the Tough Questions on Kryptonian Justice. MCLE credit is available for California attorneys. A huge thank you to McManis Faulkner for providing credit for our two panels.

Please complete the respective sign-in forms below. Attorneys must use the correct code words shared at the end of each panel for attendance.

Star Trek: Where Lawyers Boldly Go

SDCC_StarTrek_Where_Lawyers_Boldly_Go

Attendance Verification 

Downloads:

MCLE Certificate of Attendance 

MCLE Evaluation 

Jimmy Olsen Asks the Tough Questions on Kryptonian Justice

Kryptonian_Law_Supergirl

Attendance Verification 

Downloads 

MCLE Certificate of Attendance 

MCLE Verification 

Civil War 2 Murders Federal Jurisdiction

0

If you have not read Civil War 2 issue 3, stop reading now. There are major spoilers based on the trial depicted in the story. The comic is excellent with real loss. More importantly, Brian Michael Bendis is telling a story that highlights the danger of playing God with the future. No question about it, this time I am Team Iron Man.

The story opens with Matt Murdock prosecuting the murder trial of Clint Barton (Hawkeye) in Federal Court in Manhattan for the murder of Bruce Banner in Alpine, Utah. The number of problems with this trial will make any lawyer Hulk out.

The Wrong Lawyer Prosecuting the Case

Matt Murdock is an Assistant District Attorney for New York City, NOT a US Attorney. It makes zero sense for Murdock to be prosecuting a Federal murder trial. Assistant District Attorneys do not bring cases in Federal Court. That is the job of US Attorneys, who prosecute Federal crimes on behalf of the United States.

First question, was there a Federal crime violated?

The Federal crime of murder is defined under 18 USCS § 1111(a):

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnaping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

Assuming Federal Jurisdiction is proper because of a Federal investigation, Hawkeye clearly could be charged under the Federal statute for first-degree murder, because 1) he killed Banner with malice aforethought; and 2) was lying in wait in order to take the kill shot.

Problem: the murder happened in Utah, NOT New York state.

Barton could be prosecuted under the laws of Utah for the intentional killing of another human being (See, Title 76, Chapter 5, Section 203 (76-5-203) of the Utah State Legislature).

The rare times New York Assistant District Attorneys are on a Federal trial is when they are on a team with Federal Prosecutors. This happens in situations when an investigation begins in New York state court and then is turned over to Federal Prosecutors (perhaps in order to seek the death penalty). As Bruce Banner was killed in Utah, New York state would not have an investigation into an out-of-state crime.

Is New York the Right Trial Venue?

The murder of Bruce Banner took place in Alpine, Utah. Clint Barton was immediately arrested after the murder in Utah. Based on those facts, the trial of Barton should have been held at the United States District Court, District of Utah, in Salt Lake City. This is also presuming that Federal Jurisdiction is proper, which arguably is correct. SHIELD Director Maria Hill did declare the murder investigation a Federal crime scene.

The State of Utah could also prosecute Clint Barton, as the murder was committed in Alpine, Utah. This would be proper, as the State of Utah and the United States are separate sovereigns, thus it is not an issue of double jeopardy. As Manhattan is approximately 2,203.8 miles from Alpine according to Google Maps, it is a stretch for the case to be brought in New York City.

Crimes are usually prosecuted in the county or state where the crime occurred. There are times when Federal Courts might have exclusive jurisdiction over specific subject matter. Perhaps all cases with SHIELD are tried in Federal District Court in New York. However, that seems like a very obtuse practice, as Federal law enforcement agencies conduct activities all over the United States. There is not one Court for the FBI in Washington, DC, so it would be odd for one Federal Court in New York to hear all SHIELD cases.

Civil War 2 is a very thought provoking comic. The story of why Hawkeye killed Bruce Banner is well done. However, as for what was the right court for the trial of Clint Barton, the story missed the target.

Thoughts on Balance of Terror and Darmok

0

July 12, 2016 is the four-year anniversary of Jessica and I starting The Legal Geeks. My first post analyzing geek issues in the law was the Star Trek episode Court Martial.  I felt it was only fitting to celebrate our anniversary with a discussion two of my favorite Star Trek episodes: Darmok (TNG) and Balance of Terror (TOS).

A big thank you to everyone who has enjoyed our blog since its maiden voyage.

Please Nominate The Legal Geeks for the ABA Journal Blawg 100

0

The ABA Journal is accepting nominations for the 2016 Blawg 100. We would greatly appreciate any of our readers submitting “friend-of-the-blawg” briefs by August 7, 2016.

ABA_Journal_Geek_the_Vote

We are having an amazing 2016, thanks to all of you who enjoy our blog. One of the biggest highlights so far for this year was the Mock Trial of the Winter Soldier, which brought law students together from McGeorge, Whitter, and Michigan, for an awesome trial. The trial was complete with psychologists who prepared detailed expert reports on the insanity defense, plus cosplayers as witnesses. Approximately 130 people attended the mock trial, having one impressive civics lesson through pop culture.

Our next adventure is two panels at San Diego Comic Con. We have an impressive number of lawyers joining us, including an Associate Justice from the California Supreme Court. If you are attending SDCC, please be sure to Tweet or message us on Facebook, so we can say hello.

Again, thank you for joining us for our adventures. We would greatly appreciate your nomination for the ABA Journal Blawg 100 (available on the hyperlink). Thank you, and stay geeky America.

Are You a Collaborating POW If Assimilated by the Borg?

0

The Borg assimilate species to add their distinctive to the Borg’s collective. Cultures uniformly resist, resulting in their military being assimilated by the Borg. Would the crew of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-E in Star Trek First Contact who were assimilated by the Borg be considered Prisoners of War? Did they have an obligation to try to escape? Did Captain Picard owe the assimilated crew a duty to rescue them?

Provided the Federation has similar laws to the United states, a “prisoner of war” is “any regularly appointed, enrolled, enlisted, or inducted member of the military or naval forces of the United States who was held as a prisoner of war for any period of time subsequent to December 7, 1941, by any government of any nation with which the United States has been at war subsequent to such date.” 50 U.S.C. § 4105.

A Prisoner of War is defined under the Geneva Convention as “Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces…[fallen into the power of the enemy].” USCS Geneva III, Article 4. However the language might differ in the fictional 24th Century, Starfleet officers and crew would meet the definition of members of the armed forces who had fallen into the power of the enemy, after they were assimilated.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice and Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces of the United States defines how the US Military prohibits service personnel from collaborating with the enemy. See, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 904 Article 104. Judge George Latimer highlighted the reason for President Eisenhower’s Executive Order No. 10631 as follows:

We cannot and should not close our eyes to the fact that the alleged offenses occurred at a time when the accused was a prisoner of the enemy, and that he is not the first American whose activities during that time led to prosecution. United States v Dickenson, 6 USCMA 438, 20 CMR 154; United States v Batchelor, 7 USCMA 354, 22 CMR 144. These and similar incidents led to the promulgation of a formalized Code of Conduct by the President — one which reaffirmed the duty of every serviceman to resist this Nation’s enemies, in mind and spirit, in combat and captivity, to the bitterest of bitter ends. Executive Order 10631, August 17, 1955, 20 FR 6057. What, then, are we to say to those who did thwart the enemy and his designs while in captivity? Must they serve side by side with others such as this accused, who informed, and collaborated, and murdered — and benefited thereby? Will not discipline, morale and good order suffer measurably if one who murders his compatriot can remain in the service and escape punishment because he re-enlists before his crime is detected? Should the authority of military justice to punish the wrong done depend upon the illogical and fortuitous contingency of an intervening honorable discharge when it is delivered only after the accused has re-enlisted in the service? The answer should be obvious — and is to us.

UNITED STATES v. GALLAGHER (U.S.C.M.A. 1957) 22 CMR 296, 302.)

Starfleet likely has similar rules prohibiting officers and crew from providing the enemy with arms, supplies, or money. The Federation would likely have a similar Code of Conduct for Members of Starfleet to that of the United States:

“All members of the Armed Forces of the United States are expected to measure up to the standards embodied in this Code of Conduct while in combat or in captivity. To ensure achievement of these standards, members of the armed forces liable to capture shall be provided with specific training and instruction designed to better equip them to counter and withstand all enemy efforts against them, and shall be fully instructed as to the behavior and obligations expected of them during combat or captivity.”

“I

“I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

“II

“I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

“VI

“I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.”

53 FR 10355

In the aftermath of Wolf 359 with a death toll near eleven thousand and 39 starships destroyed, angry family members of victims might argue those who were assimilated by the Borg were collaborators. See, Star Trek the Next Generation, Best of Both Worlds, Parts 2; Star Trek the Next Generation, The Drumhead. However, those assimilated by the Borg could not be prosecuted for Collaboration or Aiding the Enemy (assuming they could escape after the events of Star Trek Voyager Unimatrix Zero Part 2 or Endgame). First, those assimilated did not “surrender of their own free will”; they were forcibly altered with technology. 53 FR 10355. Second, while the bodies of those assimilated did aid the Borg “with arms, ammunition, supplies,” it was not a voluntarily act. Uniform Code of Military Justice, 904 Article 104.

Starfleet officers assimilated by the Borg would have a strong insanity defense for their actions against the Federation. A defense attorney could prove those assimilated by the Borg were “unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of [their] acts.”  18 USCS § 17(a). Liberated Starfleet officers would need to testify how the Borg used them as weapons, completely destroying their free will. Expert testimony could prove how Borg technology infects their victims at the cellular level, physically altering them, and suppressing their individual decision making ability.

Assimilated officers on the Enterprise did not have the free will necessary to mount an escape from the Borg, such as Commander Worf and Doctor Bashir did from the Dominion (see Deep Space Nice, By Inferno’s Light). While it would be prudent to vaccinate all Starfleet officers with the inhibitor created by the Doctor in Star Trek Voyager Unimatrix Zero Part 2, that was after the events of Star Trek First Contact.

The morally troubling issue is Captain Picard “euthanizing” an officer assimilated by the Borg in the failed attempt to re-capture the Engine Room. While the necessity defense does not permit murder, the Borg are relentless killing machines. The issue of trying to rescue assimilated officers was a no-win scenario in First Contact, given the risk of assimilation and ensuring Zefram Cochrane’s first warp flight. Picard was justified in killing Ensign Lynch and any other Borg, since the risk of failure in stopping the Borg would destroy the future. While this on its face is the abandonment of Federation values in war, a board of inquiry would support Picard’s command decision, as destroying the Enterprise-E should have been only done as a last resort to stop the Borg.

Judging Frankenstein

0

The Imaginary Worlds podcast celebrated the 200th Anniversary of Mary Shelley beginning to write “Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus,” on June 16, 1816.

Arizona State University is honoring the anniversary with The Frankenstein Bicentennial Project, which was ultimately published in 1818.

This got me thinking…who was the first Judge to reference Frankenstein in an opinion?

The answer is Chief Justice William Pryor, of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, on June 13, 1896. The case involved mayoral appointed officials who were members of executive boards who were removed from office. Todd v. Dunlap (1896) 99 Ky. 449, 452.

Chief Justice Pryor made his Frankenstein reference in the following paragraph:

If these powers were all that were attached to the office of mayor, he would be helpless to perform the duties required of him. In what way could he be vigilant and active in causing the ordinances of the city to be enforced if the boards of his appointment, creatures of his creation, were turned upon confirmation into a set of Frankenstein monsters, who could set him at defence? How could he exercise a general supervision over all the executive and ministerial officers of the city, and see that their official duties are honestly performed, if those officers are responsible alone to a tribunal over which he has no control, though appointed by him and sharing his executive powers? What sort of statements in writing concerning the discharge of their duties might he expect from members of the boards who share his powers, and, because it was supposed that they were responsible to him, have been given greater powers than those granted to him? What benefit would he derive from statements of subordinate officials, heads of inferior departments, etc., who are responsible alone to independent and perhaps hostile tribunals? With what obstructions, tangible and intangible, would the examiners appointed by him meet in investigating the affairs of a city department over which he could exercise no control, or of an officer who owed allegiance to a different chief?

Todd, at *466-467.

This makes Chief Justice Pryor one of the earliest Legal Geeks in US History. There are likely more, but let’s salute Chief Justice Pryor paving the way for Judges today who make geek references to Star Wars, Harry Potter, Batman, Spiderman, Star Trek, and many other stories from popular culture.