Home Blog Page 42

Iron Man’s Child Endangerment of Spider-Man

0

Tony Stark entered a new world of liability in Captain America Civil War. No, not a products liability case for building another murdering robot. No, not a 1983 action for holding super-heroes in a submarine prison in violation of their civil rights. This time, Tony took a minor out of the United States, without a passport, to fight other super-heroes, in Germany. Does this mean Tony Stark committed child endangerment of Peter Parker?

Sure, Peter Parker is Spider-Man, but Pete is also a high school student and a minor. Did Tony have Aunt May sign a permission slip? Or consent for medical treatment if Peter was hurt? Did Tony explain all of the possible risks to Aunt May of fighting Captain America, Bucky, Falcon, Ant-Man, or the Scarlet Witch?

Tony Stark met with Peter Parker at the Queens home of Peter’s aunt. As such, New York law will be applied. The Empire State states that a person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when:

  1. He or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk of danger to his or her life or health; or
  2. Being a parent, guardian or other person legally charged with the care or custody of a child less than eighteen years old, he or she fails or refuses to exercise reasonable diligence in the control of such child to prevent him or her from becoming an “abused child,” a “neglected child,” a “juvenile delinquent” or a “person in need of supervision,” as those terms are defined in articles ten, three and seven of the family court act.

Penal Law § 260.10 (Consol., Lexis Advance through 2016 released chapters 1-31, 50-53, 56).

Tony Stark purposefully asked Peter Parker to go to Germany with him to subdue Captain America’s Avengers. This would require confronting, and possibly fighting, the greatest soldier ever, one of the greatest assassins ever, one who can warp reality, one who can defy the laws of physics, and a flying hero who is well armed. This unquestionably showed Stark “knowingly [acting] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old.”

Stark arguably was employing Parker, which qualifies as authorizing a child to “engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk of danger to his or her life or health.” As Spider-Man did take his share of hits from other heroes, the black eye given to him by Steve from Brooklyn is Exhibit A to the health danger.

The issue of whether Tony Stark contributed to Peter Parker being a juvenile delinquent might turn in Stark’s favor. Under New York law, a “Juvenile Delinquent” is someone who is over seven and less than sixteen years old who commits a crime if an adult did the criminal action, however, the youth is not criminally responsible because of age. NY CLS Family Ct Act § 301.2.

Asking a teenager to be a vigilante would be a crime, as it is asking a youth to join a conspiracy to commit assault, the intentional causing of injury to another person. NY CLS Penal § 120.05(1).

Courts do not take kindly to vigilantism. As New York Judge Vito Titone stated in a case with an prosecutor who abused his power:

A person charged with or suspected of the most heinous of crimes is still entitled to the fundamental fairness encompassed by the notion of due process. “Vigilante Justice” is abhorrent to our concept of jurisprudence whether the end product be a body dangling from a rope, or a person charged with a crime as a result of lawless conduct on the part of an overzealous prosecutor. The latter indeed is reprehensible since both society and the accused are victimized by one sworn to uphold the law.

People v. Rao (App.Div. 1980) 73 A.D.2d 88, 100 citing People v Isaacson, 44 NY2d 511p 524 (originally cited in Can Matt Murdock be Disbarred for Vigilantism?).

The wrinkle here is Iron Man is a state actor, even if his actions are highly Constitutionally suspect. As such, Peter Parker likely registered himself with the Sokovia Accords (raising the issue of whether a minor can legally register themselves with the Sokovia Accords). There are definitely murky legal issues, however, Tony Stark arguably was not outright contributing to the delinquency of a minor by asking Spider-Man to join the fight against Captain America.

Child endangerment on the other hand, totally.

Why the Sokovia Accords are Unconstitutional

1

Captain America Civil War is an amazing super-hero movie. It is the model of how to have a large cast of characters in a film with action, humor, plot, and heart. The only thing it lacks is a Constitutional law. The gross civil rights violations are reason enough for Captain America to go rogue.

Spoilers Ahead! 

The Sokovia Accords were an agreement between 177 countries to have an un-elected panel at the United Nations approve what missions the Avengers could go on. Super-heroes who refused to sign the accords that continued to take the law in their own hands would be prosecuted without a trial and imprisoned on the submersible Raft. While there are significant legal issues with super-heroes entering foreign countries without any legal authority, violating civil rights is not the sane answer to the problem.

There are massive legal issues with the Sokovia Accords. First, an accord is not a law, treaty, or Constitutional Amendment. Second, the United States cannot enact a law to willfully violate the rights of United States citizens. Sure, it can pass a law, but it will be Unconstitutional.

Just because 177 countries sign an agreement, that does not make it a law. To borrow from School House Rock, a bill has to go through both houses of Congress with a majority vote and be signed by the President to become effective. In case of a treaty, the Senate has to approve the treaty by a 2/3 vote (Article II, section 2). The treaty is not ratified until the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the US and signing foreign powers. There are incidents in history where the United States signed, but did not ratify a treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol or Treaty of Versailles.

The United States cannot purposefully enact an Unconstitutional law. The Sokovia Accords appear to have elements of conscription if not outright impressment, with punishments ranging from internment to imprisonment without the Writ of Habeas Corpus. None of these “legal” safeguards on super-hero activity included any form of Due Process. The only way this international agreement could be worse is to throw in elements from the Indian Removal Act.

Treaties Cannot Violate the Constitution

The Sokovia Accords have all the charm of forcing US citizens into self-imposed exile to avoid internment or imprisonment. This should alert Senators to do their Constitutional duty to offer advice and consent on approving the Sokovia Accords, as they are very different from any other treaty entered by the United States.

Consider NATO for example. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization helped keep the peace during the Cold War. NATO is a mutual defense pack, but there was a concern that it would violate the Constitution. Congress has the power to declare war and a treaty mandating a military response if another nation is attacked infringes on Congress’ Constitutional duty to declare war.

Article 5 is the heart of the NATO agreement:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

All that is currently publicly available on the Sokovia Accords is the following:

In accordance with the document at hand, I hereby certify that the below mentioned participants, peoples and individuals, shall no longer operate freely or unregulated, but instead operate under the rules, ordinances and governances of the afore mentioned United Nations panel, acting only when and if the panel deems it appropriate and/or necessary.

The Sokovia Accords are the size of a phone book that mandate personal conduct. That is always a warning to anyone concerned about civil rights. Immediately the Sokovia Accords raise two huge issues: mandatory conscription and arresting citizens without Due Process.

Drafting of United States Citizens

The United States first enacted a draft in July of 1863 during the Civil War. Ironically, the states-in-rebellion held a Confederate draft before the United States. For the following 100 years, the United States held drafts in times of war, with President Nixon ultimately ending the draft. President Carter brought back mandatory registration for the draft in 1980. Under current US law, males must register for Selective Service as follows:

(a)  Except as otherwise provided in this title, it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder. The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any alien lawfully admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (66 Stat. 163; 8 U.S.C. 1101), for so long as he continues to maintain a lawful nonimmigrant status in the United States. 

(b)  Regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) may require that persons presenting themselves for and submitting to registration under this section provide, as part of such registration, such identifying information (including date of birth, address, and social security account number) as such regulations may prescribe.

50 U.S.C. § 3802 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through Pl 114-146, approved 4/19/16).

The fact only men have to register for the Draft is not subject to an equal protection challenge. 50 USCS Appx § 453; Witt v. Dep’t of the Air Force (9th Cir. 2008) 548 F.3d 1264, 1278-1279.

It is arguably within the President’s power to draft all of the male Avengers for military service. However, the purposeful selection of the Avengers would not be in an impartial manner under 50 U.S.C. § 3805. Moreover, as Steve Rogers served honorably between December 7, 1941 to September 2, 1945, he would not be eligible to be drafted. 50 U.S.C. § 3806(b)(1). Moreover, as all of the human male Avengers are over 26 years of age, they could not be drafted. 50 USCS § 3803(a).

As the Military Selective Service Act would likely fail drafting anyone with super powers, mandating super-heroes be registered and deployed according to the orders of an un-elected United Nations panel sounds a lot like involuntary servitude, which would violate the 13th Amendment.

That was the cause of another Civil War.

Imprisonment in Violation of the US Constitution

As evidenced in Captain America Civil War, Sam Wilson, Clint Barton, Scott Lang, and Wanda Maximoff are all imprisoned on the Raft after the fight at the German airport. This is extremely troubling, as none of them were afforded their right to counsel, taken before a magistrate after being arrested, or even given a trial.

The estimated time to build the new class of aircraft carriers beginning with the USS Gerald Ford is 11 years at a cost of $10.44 billion ($36.30 billion for the entire program). Ship building construction times will likely decease with the following carriers, however the point is building a large ship takes years. The fact the Raft is fully operational submarine prison operated by the US Navy means the United States government had planned to build the Raft years before the events in Sokovia. This is highly suspect that such a large project was undertaken with the apparent purpose to violate the civil rights of US citizens.

The US government imprisoning US citizens on a submarine prison would deprive anyone accused of a crime of the following civil rights:

The writ of habeas corpus, which requires a person in custody to be brought before a Court;

The 4th Amendment, which protects people from arbitrary arrests;

The 5th Amendment, which protects people from being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

The 6th Amendment right to counsel; and

The 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The US Navy apparently is not underway with a Federal Judge, along with a US Attorney, and Federal Public Defender. This means those arrested are not brought before a judge pursuant to the writ of habeas corpus. In the case of the imprisoned Avengers, the fight at the airport arguably was done out of self-defense, because of the Unconstitutional enforcement of the Sokovia Accords, and the UN’s rush to judgment to have James Buchanan Barnes shot on sight instead of arrested. As Tony Stark was more into enforcing his will upon others, Constitutional rights were being ignored, justifying the fight between the Avengers. The accused should have had their day in court to argue their case, opposed to being locked away without a trial.

The lack of any form of trial would violate the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments to the Constitution. Moreover, was any form of Miranda issued? While some might say, “Hey, the Avengers were in Germany,” thus anything goes with civil rights, they would be wrong. Soldiers arresting terrorists still give Miranda warnings, because our system is the only one we know. We do not ignore it if it suits our needs for expediency.

Holding prisoners in a submarine is one of first impression. The United States has avoided prison ships, most likely because of the Revolutionary War Prison Ship Martyrs. For those not familiar with the history, 11,500 Revolutionary War Prisoners of War died on sixteen British ships used a floating prisons. These prison ships probably were Exhibit A to many of the Founding Fathers when the 8th Amendment was drafted prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

The fact the [fictional] United States built a prison ship throws American history out the window, which would be the subject of lawyers willing to do battle for Wilson, Lang, Barton, and Maximoff in a court of law.

The Wrong Political Solution

Captain America Civil War has 177 governments take aim at super-heroes for the wrongs of others. While it is wrong for super-heroes to act without any regulation, the solution here does not make any sense. Let’s review the wrongs committed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe:

Iron Man: Obadiah Stane sold weapons to terrorists. This is all an inside job at Stark Industries, based on corporate greed. Where was Stark’s oversight?

The Incredible Hulk: The Abomination was created from Army experiment ordered by General Ross, which drove Emil Blonsky mad. If Blonsky had not been experimented on, Blonsky would not have forced Samuel Sterns to conduct the experiment upon Blonsky, which turned Blonsky into the Abomination (and Sterns into The Leader).

The Incredible Hulk: General Ross had SHIELD commit gross violations of 4th Amendment by searching the CONTENT of all digital communications for Bruce Banner without a search warrant.

Avengers: SHIELD experiments allowed Loki to go to Earth

Iron Man 3: The Vice President of the United States participated in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow US government, which resulted in President Matthew Ellis being kidnapped for execution.

Winter Soldier: HYDRA grew within SHIELD and attempted overthrow of the Government by killing over 11 million Americans within minutes.

Age of Ultron: Tony Stark and Bruce Banner created the murder-bot Ultron.

The major themes from Marvel movies is threats come from secret government projects or Tony Stark. Civil War has these two problem creating forces come together to make a bad situation worse. If anything, there would be loud public outcry against the Elis Administration for an attempted coup d’etat by his own Vice President, followed by crashing helicarriers in the Potomac, and a failing city from the sky, because a US weapons manufacturer made a giant killing robot. President Ellis is destined to be a one term President given how much has gone wrong on his watch.

Captain America was right to take a stand against the Sokovia Accords. Literally no good could come from there. As for what is reasonable regulation of super-heroes, that has yet to be answered.

May the 4th Be With You!

0

It’s time to geek out for Star Wars Day. Attorneys Jessica Mederson, Megan Hitchcock, Roger Quiles explore the following legal issues in Star Wars:

Did Kylo Ren commit desecration of a corpse in displaying Darth Vader’s helmet in a shrine? Would it matter if Anankin Skywalkers body became one with the Force?

Can Rey be the legal owner of Luke’s original light saber?

What would be the punishment on Earth for Jyn Erso crimes of Forgery of Imperial documents; Possession of Stolen property; Aggravated assault; Resisting Arrest?

Megan also shares her stores from running in the Star Wars Half Marathon Race to the Dark Side at Disney World. Check out the medals Megan took home from Orlando.

Captain America and The Sin of Hearsay

0

Captain America has faced many foes. In the Trial of James Buchanan Barnes, that foe included a video of the Red Skull’s daughter Sin making the following statement:

“It was all a trick… A Set-Up… No idiot, Barnes was my father’s operative for years… They claim he was brainwashed, but it was a lie…The Russians just TURNED him. Him saving the President, claiming redemption…it was a fake…Daddy didn’t want his own President…he wanted his own Captain America.”

Captain America No. 613, February 2011.

Could the Prosecution offer this statement on video as evidence of Barnes’ guilt?

Admissibility is the shield for juries to ensure the truth is presented in a trial. Evidence is admissible if the following is satisfied:

Relevant: FRE 401: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

FRE 402: Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

Authentication: FRE 901: To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.
Undue Prejudice: FRE 403: The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: Unfair prejudice; Confusing the issues; Misleading the jury; Undue delay; Wasting time; Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence
Hearsay: FRE 801: Out of Court Statement offered for truth of the matter asserted.
Original Writing: Fed Rules Evid R 1002: An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

Fed Rules Evid R 1003: A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.

Relevance

The Prosecution could argue that Sin’s video “confession” is relevant, because it goes to show James Buchanan Barnes was a traitor, not someone who was brainwashed.

The Defense would argue that the video irrelevant, because the video is only of Sin making an uncorroborated statement about two other people (her Nazi father and James Barnes). Her statement is not an admission by Barnes. Making a statement against someone else’s interest does not make it true; it is only defamation.

Authentication

Authenticating the video would require the Prosecution to demonstrate the video is what it purports to be. This means that a Court “need not find that the evidence is necessarily what the proponent claims, but only that there is sufficient evidence that the jury ultimately might do so.” U.S. v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 36 (D.D.C. 2006).

The Court would make the Prosecution go through a Danger Room of authentication to ensure the video is accurate. The first stage is demonstrating the video was true, competently recorded, and free of any editing (see U.S. v. McMillan (8th Cir. 1984) for audio recordings).

The second stage is to prove the speaker is Sin. Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5) states that: “Voice identification is adequate if made by a witness having sufficient familiarity with the speaker’s voice.” Familiarity may be obtained previous to or after listening to the recorded voice.

The big question: who could testify for the Prosecution as to the authenticity of the video?

Unfair Prejudice

Let’s be very clear: A Would-Be Nazi Queen saying your client are a traitor is extremely prejudicial to your client’s reputation while they are on trial for treason.

Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 403 is not the “Bucky Rule” of Admissibility, however, it would be heavily relied on by the Defense. Courts may exclude evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: Unfair prejudice; Confusing the issues; Misleading the jury; Undue delay; Wasting time; Needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

A video with a convicted terrorist accusing Barnes of treason on its face causes unfair prejudice and arguably misleads the jury. What evidence does Sin have of Barnes’ guilt? Did she witness it? Moreover, how can she testify to what the Red Skull wanted? Her entire statement is purely speculation that accuses Barnes of guilt.

Witnesses cannot be impeached based on a hearsay accusation that they committed a crime, because a hearsay accusation of guilt has little logical relevance to the witness’ credibility. State v. Cox (1983) 298 Md. 173, 181. In Captain America’s case, a third-party hearsay statement accusing Barnes of committing treason is far more prejudicial than simply impeachment, because it goes to the ultimate issue of guilt.

Hearsay

Sin’s recorded statement should never see the inside of a courtroom because it is hearsay without any exception or non-hearsay purpose. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Fed Rules Evid R 801(c)(1) and (2). In this case, that is 1) The Russians turned James Buchanan Barnes into a traitor; and 2) Barnes was the Red Skull’s Captain America.

Valid hearsay exceptions include party admissions and co-conspirator statements. In Sin’s statement, Barnes by definition is not the speaker. Sin is also accusing Bucky of being part of a conspiracy, which is NOT the same as being part of a conspiracy. A declarant cannot bootstrap someone into the co-conspirator exception through an accusation of guilt. There has to be evidence that Barnes was part of the same conspiracy as Sin in order to connect the wheels and spokes of the purported conspiracy.

The Prosecution could argue the statements were made to psychiatrist, thus were made for the purpose of medical treatment, and thus would be admissible. That is a stretch of the Rule, because accusing a third-party of treason has nothing to do with her medical treatment. Sin’s accusation would be forcefully attacked on cross-examination if Sin was available to testify at trial, which again highlights the reason we have a hearsay rule in the first place.

Closing Argument

The trial of James Buchanan Barnes had excellent cross-examination of Prosecution witness to impeach each of them. That being said, motion in limine hearings are exciting to attorneys, but not necessarily to all comic book fans. At the Mock Trial of the Winter Soldier at San Diego Comic Fest, the Defense brought a motion in limine pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 403 to exclude the “security footage” from the Winter Soldier killing SHIELD airmen at the Battle of the Triskelion. The audience paid extremely close attention to the hearing. The law students did extremely well, with the Judge ultimately ruling for the Prosecution to allow the “security footage.”

Sin’s “confession” was never introduced at trial in the Captain America story arc from 613 to 615. However, it is unlikely the Judge would have allowed the evidence because it is hearsay and its prejudicial effect.

An Inhuman Dopamine Defense

0

The Inhumans on Agents of SHIELD have a serious problem: the Inhuman Hive can infect any Inhuman, effectively turning them into his personal flying monkeys. Hive effectively makes Inhumans loyal to him through a viral infection that stimulates dopamine in the brains of his victims. Since the former Grant Ward is one creepy ancient alien, his apparent goal for world domination is to turn all of humanity into Inhumans, activating the Inhuman genes within the population with Terrigen Crystals, and turning all of the world into his personal flying monkeys. Since Terrigen is involved, that could be a literal threat.

Could the Inhumans infected by Hive argue the insanity defense if they are eventually cured? For this argument to be successful, the Inhuman Defendants would have to show 1) they had a severe mental disease or defect; and 2) As a result, they unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. (See, Model Jury Instruction for the Insanity Defense for the 9th Circuit).

Medical evidence would show the Inhumans had a mental disease from the virus within their brains. This infection caused an undue influence on them, thus impairing their judgment, thus they did not know the wrongfulness of their actions.

There are some problems with this defense, as evidenced with Daisy confronting Fitz. Daisy physically assaulted Fitz and verbally threatened him to not follow her. This shows that she did at least understand her actions could harm Fitz and made the threat against him (and by extension all of SHIELD). This shows some knowledge of right from wrong.

The defense of “involuntary intoxication” might be a stronger defense than the insanity defense. Expert testimony in prior cases has explained the effect of medication on the brain’s neurochemistry as follows:

…[T]he level of dopamine in the brain affects a person’s behavior and “probably has one of the most profound effects on human emotion and behavior.” Increases in dopamine can cause one to “feel more agitated, irritable, anxious, sleepless; keep turning it up and up you can get manic; keep turning it up and up you can get psychotic.”

United States v. MacDonald (C.A.A.F. 2014) 73 MJ 426, 432.)

Involuntary intoxication has a two-part test: 1) Involuntary ingestion of an intoxicant; 2) Due to this ingestion, defendant was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts. MacDonald, at *437.

Hive’s influence on Inhumans would require a hybrid defense between the insanity defense and involuntary intoxication, because Hive IS the intoxicant. The defenses are substantially different, but so is the effect of Hive on Inhumans. The infected parties undertake actions due to their dopamine levels, which cause a change in personality. This defense likely would be successful, but would expert testimony to explain how Hive impacts the neurochemistry of the Inhuman brain.

Remember when Batman and Superman were Super-Friends?

0

Jim Dedman from the Abnormal Use blog joined me to discuss Batman v Superman. We are both Gen Xers and shared our understanding of Superman and Batman from the John Byrne’s Man of Steel comic in 1986, Crisis on Infinitive Earths, Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns, plus other classic stories.

We also explore the important issue from BvS, what would happen after the attack on Congress? Were all 535 members of Congress killed? What would happen to the House of Representatives, which does not have the options for replacing Senators.

Tune in to hear two geek lawyers discuss all things Batman and Superman.

Comic Talk: Freyja on Trial? SHIELD Experimenting on Prisoners?

0

Jess and I love the Thor and Captain America comics. We review the latest issues, focusing on whether Queen Aelsa had the mental capacity to marry Malekitch, and Odin’s trial of Freyja for defying “the will of its rightful ruler and insurrection.”

I share my thoughts on the 75th Anniversary of Captain America and whether SHIELD violated prisoners’ rights by using a Cosmic Cube to perform reality altering psychosurgery on the inmates.

We also are thrilled for the upcoming Black Panther comic, so tune in for more on our comic talk.