A Fist Full of Mandos

By

-

January 8, 2020

Mandalorian Episode 4 — Photo Credit: Disney+, The Mandalorian

What do you do if your space shrimp fishing village is attacked by bandits? That is the question that the residents of a village on the planet of Sorgan find themselves in during the events of Episode 4 of Disney+’s The Mandalorian. Now, if you haven’t seen the show you should check it out because it’s quite good. If you want to watch the show before reading this article I won’t blame you, and you probably should, but if you want to plow ahead then I’ll try to make this as spoiler free as possible. That said, here’s the spoiler summary from the show so far: The Mandalorian (or Mando), a bounty hunter, was hired to return a bounty. The bounty turned out to be internet sensation Baby Yoda. Mando decided he didn’t want the Baby experimented on, so he steals him from the remnants of the Empire and goes on the run. Thus, he finds himself on Sorgan confronted by two space shrimp farmers. This brings us back to the original question, what do you do if you find your village attacked by Klatoonian raiders? Well, you really only have a few options: option 1 you run away and find somewhere else to live, option 2 you do nothing and keep giving them what they want from your village and hope they don’t kill you (hint: probably not your best option), option 3 you rally the villagers and fight back, option 4 you hire a professional bounty hunter who’s a bit down on his luck and protecting the internet’s new cutest thing ever. Guess which option these guys picked. If you guessed option 4, you are correct (incidentally, if you guessed option 3 you’re kind of right but it wasn’t what we were going for so half points).

Now, let’s make a slight tweak to the show here and make Mando a law abiding citizen who doesn’t really want to go out and straight murder these raiders for money. Does Mando have some legal justification that will let him keep his newfound law abiding attitude and still take the payment the villagers offered him? It might surprise some to learn that the law does make some accommodations for the use of deadly force that might let Mando take this job without looking at the next rest of his life in a New Republic prison. They are called justification defenses and in broad terms they all look like this: the Defendant (Mando in our case) says, “yes I killed all those raiders but I was legally justified in killing them because of …” whatever specific defense applies. Let’s look at three justification defenses and see if they’ll help our friend Mando out of the dilemma he finds himself in. All three of these defenses are fairly standardized across the jurisdictions (at least at the basic level we’re going to cover here) so I’m going to use Oregon’s laws as examples. If you want the law where you live, check your local law library. Also, at this point it seems worth a reminder that in real life by the time you’ve gotten to the point of considering what defenses might apply to an action you are already in deep trouble so take a few steps back and avoid trouble where at all possible. Now, back to the Mando.

The first defense we should consider is perhaps the most famous, Self-Defense. In its purest form a case of self-defense looks like this. You’re minding your own business sitting in a bar, maybe getting hired to run some passengers off world, when all of a sudden a Rodian drops in across from you and points a blaster at your head. Were that Rodian to say something about your dead body being the idea of the situation you would be fully justified to shoot him first. Let’s break this down into the elements of the defense. Looking at Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 161.209 we see that a person is entitled to use self-defense when they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of having unlawful physical force used against them and that they may respond with whatever degree of force they believe is reasonably necessary. Subject to some limitations, but we’ll get back to that later. Applying the self-defense rule to our bar example above: our hero reasonably believes that the Rodian is imminently going shoot him, because the Rodian has just told him that’s the idea. There’s nothing lawful about shooting someone in a bar because they have a bounty on their head placed there by a crime lord (look, if it’s not obvious at this point that we’re talking about Han and Greedo in the cantina during A New Hope you might want to go watch the original Star Wars movies). So, Han reasonably believes he is going to be killed unlawfully by Greedo and he gets to shoot him in self-defense, but what about Mando and the raiders? Well, we run into one problem right away. Unlike the cantina example the Raiders aren’t threating Mando himself so self-defense is out. Luckily, there is another. No, not another Skywalker (well yes apparently one of those too) but another defense.

Closely related to self-defense is the defense of others. It has the same elements, reasonable belief, imminent treat, and reasonable response but you are acting in defense of someone else instead of in defense of yourself. This looks more like what Mando might rely on to attack the raiders. The villagers are certainly in danger and it is reasonable for Mando to believe that they are. The trouble is, there is very little to indicate that the danger is imminent. Put another way, it is not an imminent threat for me to type in this article that I’m going to shoot you. I don’t own a gun and I don’t know who you are or where to find you. You have no right to self-defense against me because of that line in an article you read online (keep that in mind please). Similarly, even a vague threat from the raiders that they’ll be back isn’t enough for a threat to be imminent. When we make justification defenses available in the law they are meant to be available as last resorts.

The final justification defense we might look at is defense of property. ORS 161.229: A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief (damaging or destroying someone else’s property) of property. At first blush, this looks promising for Mando. The raiders are certainly committing theft and criminal mischief against the villagers. The trouble Mando will run into in asserting defense of property is that it limits the use of deadly force which is, if we’re being honest, Mando’s go to. See ORS 161.229. The limit on deadly force is something of a reflection on our values as a society. You aren’t privileged to kill someone over property because we value life more than stuff, at least that’s the theory. Mando would be privileged to use deadly force if, and only if, he were defending the premises and not the stuff there, which he is by the end of the episode. He is privileged to defend the premises by deadly force if necessary because by this point he is trying to prevent the raiders (who are trespassing) from committing a felony by force or violence (wholesale murder of the village). There’s a problem though, Mando and Cara Dune baited the raiders into attacking. This would make sense if you’re a mercenary hired to protect a village, but it would also negate any self-defense claim. Recall that you are only privileged to use self-defense if you are in danger, but you are lose that privilege if you provoke that danger with the aim of then being able to defend yourself. For example, if you attack a raider camp with the aim of provoking them into attacking you so that you can defend yourself, you do not get to claim self-defense when you then kill all the raiders and destroy their AT-ST. The reason for this is of course because we don’t want to make it legal for someone to provoke someone into a fight just so they could beat or kill them and then claim self-defense. Self-defense is designed to be a rare event reserved for those situations when you are truly under threat and don’t have a choice other than to defend yourself.

The real problem we run into in this analysis is that when legislatures create these types of justification defenses they are created for individuals not communities. For the protection of communities we typically create police forces or militaries depending on if we’re looking to protect from internal or external threats respectively. These laws simply weren’t made for the situation the Sorgan farmers found themselves in and unfortunately we don’t get enough background on the planet to know what form of government it might have and if that government has any protection to offer the farmers. It seems clear though that rather than looking at justification defenses for the assaults, murders, and various other crimes Mando commits (or allegedly commits) it makes more sense to look at this as a quasi-governmental action to protect the village. If you look at in that light, a sovereign entity like the village is perfectly at liberty to protect its sovereignty from outside threats like other governments or raiders. Sovereignties can do things like preemptive strikes or hiring mercenary forces that individuals can’t and under those parameters Mando and Cara’s actions were entirely justified.

Neglect on Navarro: Charges Against the Empire for the Abuse of The Child

By

Kean Zimmerman

-

January 7, 2020

0

29-The-Mandalorian-Scout-Troopers — Photo Credit: Disney+, The Mandalorian

The finale of The Mandalorian contained twists, turns, and a fair share of action to send off the series’ characters at the end of their first season. However, much of the action centered around the Mandalorian’s small travel companion and his pursuit by the remnants of the Empire. Despite the innumerable atrocities committed by the Empire, none were more prevalent in this chapter than the abuse suffered by Baby Yoda (we use this name for convenience and acknowledge that the life form may have no relation to Yoda whatsoever). So how exactly could the New Republic hold the Empire accountable in this scenario?

** Spoilers for The Mandalorian Ahead**

From the very first chapter, the Empire has been on an intense man(baby?)hunt for the young bounty. However, it was not until this chapter that they took him into their custody. At the end of the seventh chapter, we see two scout troopers gun down Kuiil before making off with Baby Yoda. This is in itself likely constitutes a crime.

Reckless Endangerment

Connecticut defines reckless endangerment as when a person, with extreme indifference to human life, recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of serious physical injury to another person. C.G.S. § 52a-63(a). Given that we see smoke rising from Kuiil’s body at the end of the seventh chapter it’s safe to assume that the scout troopers fired on him while he was attempting to get Baby Yoda back to the Razor Crest. The shots surely created a risk of serious physical injury to Baby Yoda as it clearly resulted in the death of Kuill. Not only could one of the shots have hit Baby Yoda, but the resulting crash (unseen, but assumed since Baby Yoda was found on the ground) could also have caused serious physical injury.

Risk of Injury to a Minor

It is not as clear if the scout troopers could be charged with risk of injury to a minor. Connecticut’s charge for risk of injury to a minor makes it a crime to place a child under the age of 16 in a situation where that child is at risk of life endangerment, injury to health or moral impairment, or to otherwise do anything likely to cause impairment to that child’s health or morals. C.G.S. § 53-21(a)(1). From chapters one and two, we know that the bounty was originally described to the Mandalorian as being 50 years old. Despite the fact that Baby Yoda objectively acts like a child, there is little question that he does not fit the age requirement under this law. As a result, and even though the shots fired at Kuiil could represent a risk of life endangerment to Baby Yoda, it is unlikely that the scout troopers could be charged with risk of injury to a minor.

Kidnapping

The more obvious charge here would be kidnapping as it was the scout trooper’s clear intent to whisk Baby Yoda back to the clutches of the Empire. Kidnapping in the first degree and the second degree both require the abduction of another person. C.G.S. §§ 53a-92a – 53a-94. However, to be kidnapping in the first degree the abduction has to be for a ransom, for inflicting physical injury or sexual abuse, for accomplishing the commission of a felony, or for terrorizing the victim or a third person. Id. It is clear from the troopers’ actions that Baby Yoda was abducted, as we see in the opening minutes of the eighth chapter. In that scene we see the scout trooper played by Jason Sudekis (now disowned by Second City Theater for his reprehensible actions) physically punch Baby Yoda.

At this point, not only can we establish the assault of Baby Yoda (the cause of physical injury to a person with the intent to cause such harm see C.G.S. § 53a-61), but this also satisfies the second element of kidnapping in the first degree since Baby Yoda certainly suffered from physical abuse. In fact, given that this kidnapping occurred with the use of firearms (regardless of how inaccurate any of the shots may be), this would constitute kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm. C.G.S. § 53a-92a. This charge carries a mandatory one year sentence that cannot be reduced.

Liability for the Empire

There is little doubt that the scout troopers could be held criminally liable for their actions against Baby Yoda. Were it not for the actions of the recommissioned nurse droid IG-11 those scout troopers would still be at large. As a result, they cannot be held responsible for their crimes. However, the Empire, or its remnants, may also be held liable for those same actions. Although most jurisdictions hesitate to extend vicarious liability to employers for the criminal acts of their employees, individual employers can still be held liable on conspiracy charges in certain circumstances. Conspiracy is described as follows:

A person is guilty of conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy. C.G.S. § 53a-48.

Presuming the scout troopers were acting under the orders of Moff Gideon when they absconded with, and subsequently held Baby Yoda, then it could be presumed that Moff Gideon had agreed with them to commit the kidnapping. In fact, although we do not see this in the show, it can be presumed that Moff Gideon ordered the scout troopers to obtain Baby Yoda. Given that the scout troopers were successful in their attempt to whisk away Baby Yoda, this would suffice in committing an overt act in pursuance of the kidnapping of Baby Yoda. Likewise, Moff Gideon, or anyone directing the actions of the scout troopers, could be held liable for conspiracy of other criminal acts of the scout troopers if it can be shown that persons supervising the scout troopers agreed to engage in such conduct. For example, since the scout trooper (Jason Sudeikis) only hit Baby Yoda in retaliation for being bitten (understandably), no one else in the Empire had conspired with the scout trooper to commit that act. Thus the elements for conspiracy to commit battery would not be met.

While Baby Yoda is safe, at least for the moment, we cannot ignore the great harm he was subjected to in the season finale at the hands of the Empire. It will be up to the New Republic to hold the last remnants of the Empire responsible for their actions. Even if Baby Yoda’s age doesn’t make him a child according to the risk of injury to a minor statute, the public will still not stand for this travesty.

Legal Analysis of Mandalorian Chapters Six and Seven

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 21, 2019

0

Prison escapes! Accessory Liability! Martial Law! Infants Flying Spaceships! Abandoned Droids! Gabby Martin, Thomas Harper, and I, took deep drives into the many legal issues in The Mandalorian Chapters 6 and 7.

The Galaxy’s Greatest Son: Kylo Ren’s Inheritance

By

Thomas Harper

-

December 17, 2019

0

The Rise of Skywalker nearly is upon us and Star Wars fans worldwide are clamoring for answers to the questions that have plagued us since The Last Jedi. While things like the fate of the Resistance and Palpatine’s mysterious return are no doubt important to many, there is one question that stands above all others: What will Kylo Ren’s inheritance be?

With the love of estate planning being so prevalent amongst Star Wars fans, it’s time to give the people what they really want by taking a look at what the galaxy’s #1 son stands to inherit as the Skywalker Saga concludes.

What parent wouldn’t want to leave their things to such a doting and well-adjusted son like Kylo?

Kylo first found himself in a position to possibly receive inheritance at the start of the sequel trilogy. Kylo’s life was suddenly turned upside down towards the end of The Force Awakens when his father, Han Solo, suddenly died of a tragic lightsaber wound.

When someone dies (even on a far away planet that is also a superweapon), a legal process known as probate is used to settle the decedent’s (dead person’s) debts and to ensure their property is transferred to heirs and beneficiaries in an orderly fashion. A specialized type of court, known as a probate court, is typically involved in this process, with the goal of overseeing the administration of estates.

Even though Han wasn’t exactly in the best financial position at the time of his death, he still had assets to his name. From the reclaimed Millennium Falcon to his trusty DL-44 blaster, Han owned a decent amount of property at death, which would need to be distributed during the probate process.

The law generally requires that you outlive someone in order to inherit from his or her estate. Leia and Kylo, as Han’s surviving spouse and child, would therefore both be in position to be beneficiaries of Han’s estate.

“This is NOT how I thought this day was gonna end.”

The first step in the probate process is determining whether Han died with a will. A will is a key part of the probate process, since it’s the document in which a person expresses how his property should be distributed after he dies. As someone who lives out of his spaceship and illegally hauls rathtars around the galaxy, it’s safe to say that Han probably never took the time to sit down a and draft a will.

When someone dies without a will, a set of default laws kick in. Known as intestate succession laws, these laws apply equally to anyone who dies without a will. In the absence of a will to provide clear directions, intestate laws operate to ensure an orderly distribution of an estate that minimizes fighting amongst heirs. These laws establish both who is eligible to inherit from an estate, as well as setting their respective shares.

For example, in Pennsylvania, in the case of a person who is survived by both a spouse and a child of that marriage, the spouse inherits the first $30,000 of the decedent’s property, plus half of the remaining balance, and the child inherits the rest. Han’s family fits that profile, meaning Leia and Kylo would potentially stand to inherit a decent chunk of Han’s estate.

Kylo can’t wait to hang his dad’s lucky sabaac dice over the rearview mirror of his command shuttle.

But before Kylo can tear off in the Millennium Falcon to do space donuts, he’ll have to deal with a major legal speed bump to his inheritance claim. That legal hiccup arises because of how Han died. Kylo isn’t in a position to inherit from his dad because of some unfortunate accident or a sudden deadly illness—he murdered his father in cold blood. If it seems patently unfair that someone might stand to inherit from his own misdeeds, that’s because it absolutely is.

Fortunately, just about every state has legal mechanisms in place to prevent these types of ill-gotten gains. Commonly known as “slayer statutes,” these laws prevent someone who killed the decedent from inheriting from the victim’s estate. Slayer statutes accomplish this by treating the slayer as having died before or “predeceased” the victim, which effectively bars them from inheriting any property. One of the most famous examples of a slayer statute in action came with the Menendez Brothers in the 1990s. Lyle and Erik Menendez, heirs to a $14.5 million dollar estate, brutally murdered their parents in 1989. They were later convicted in a high profile trial and barred from inheriting the lucrative estate.

In Kylo’s case, he would almost certainly be classified as a “slayer” under the law in most states. In Pennsylvania, a slayer is defined as “any person who participates, either as a principal or as an accessory before the fact, in the willful and unlawful killing of another person.” Kylo was a principal in the death of Han, having willfully run him through with a lightsaber on Starkiller base.

Obliterating property of the estate just because you can’t inherit it is never the right answer.

Although Kylo might cry foul that he hasn’t been tried and convicted of Han’s death, that wouldn’t matter in most states. While a criminal conviction for murder is often treated as conclusive proof that someone is a slayer, a typical slayer statute does not require a criminal conviction. That’s because these statutes are civil laws, not criminal laws, which means the burden of proof is much lower. Kylo’s responsibility for Han’s killing would therefore only need to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if the court concluded that it was more likely than not that Kylo killed Han, he would be blocked from any inheritance. Given that there were two eyewitnesses to the crime (three if the court can find a wookiee interpreter for Chewbacca to testify), that burden of proof would be easy to meet.

Kylo might also argue that he isn’t a slayer because he wasn’t criminally responsible for Han’s murder, perhaps by reason of Dark Side induced insanity. But despite that argument, he might still be barred from any inheritance in certain states. For example, in Florida, the definition of a slayer is much broader, including those who unlawfully kills or merely participates in procuring the death of someone. That expansive definition includes crimes that go beyond premeditated murder, and arguably includes lesser unlawful killings such as involuntary manslaughter.

Unfortunately for Kylo, his eagerness to prove himself to Snoke likely doomed his chances at any inheritance. Kylo won’t even stand to inherit a single one of Han’s dusty old vests (which are no doubt covered in Chewbacca hair).

San Diego Comic Fest 2020 Call for Law Students for Mandalorian Adoption Hearing Mock Trial

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 16, 2019

0

Interested law students can apply to serve as counsel in our fifth mock trial at San Diego Comic Fest, to be held on March 7, 2020, at the Four Points by Sheraton in San Diego.

This year’s Comic Fest will celebrate the centennials of Ray Bradbury and Ray Harryhausen with guests including Bill Sienkiewicz, J. Michael Straczynski, Marv Wolfman, and many more.

This year’s mock trial will be the Adoption Petition for The Child by The Mandalorian. Interested law students can apply below. Attorney coaches will work with the law students and witnesses on their respective cases. The teams will represent the Petitioner Mandalorian for his Adoption Petition for The Child and the Respondent Background Check Agency who conducted the Home Study. The Bench Brief will be available after the conclusion of The Mandalorian Season 1.

Loading…

Lessons with Contract and Partnerships on The Mandalorian

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 13, 2019

0

The Sorgan Krill Farmers contracted with The Mandalorian in a contract for services that was straight out of Magnum PI: The Mandalorian would provide security services against raiders in exchange for lodging. While the Mandalorian and the Child were not in the guesthouse at Robin’s Nest, they did get a nice barn for their lodging with food services. Was that a valid contract?

Taking inspiration from Hawaiian law, a “landlord and tenant may agree to any consideration, not otherwise prohibited by law, as rent.” HRS § 521-21. In this case, the consideration is performance of security services. As there was not a written rental agreement between the parties as to the tenancy of a lease, the tenancy is a month-to-month lease. HRS § 521-22. However, as there was no written contract, the lease could be unenforceable under the statute of frauds. HRS § 490:2A-201. However, since there was contract performance by the Mandalorian and Cara Dune, this arguably would eliminate the statute of frauds issue. See, Shannon v. Waterhouse, 58 Hawai’i 4, 5-6, 563 P.2d 391, 393 (1977).

The contract for security services in exchange for lodging was likely valid, but does have an issue with the lease agreement not being in writing.

Was there a Partnership Agreement between Mandalorian and Cara Dune?

The Mandalorian immediately sought the assistance of Care Dune to assist in providing security services to the Sorgan Krill Farmers. Did this alliance form a partnership between the Mandalorian and Dune?

A partnership is “the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership. . . .” Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld, 50 Conn. App. 280, 287 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998), citing Conn. General Statutes § 34-314.

The Mandalorian and Care Dune provided security services together for the Sorgan Krill Farmers, in exchange for lodging. Moreover, Dune was paid “lunch money” as her initial consideration to join the partnership. While neither truly followed the formal requirements to form of partnership, their conduct did show two individuals working together for profit. This is the classic definition of a partnership, or at least a joint venture.

Did the Sorgan Farmers fail to disclose a material fact about the AT-ST?

Not all surprises are good. The Sorgan Krill Farmers failing to tell the Mandalorian and Cara Dune about the Raiders’ Imperial Walker would fall into the “not good” surprise category. The issue for their security contract is whether the non-disclosure of that material fact could make the contract voidable. There are situations when a contracting party has a duty to speak about a material fact that can amount to concealment.

There can be a duty to speak about a material fact under four situations:

It may be directly imposed by statute or other prescriptive law;

It may be voluntarily assumed by contractual undertaking;

It may arise as an incident of a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff; and

It may arise as a result of other conduct by the defendant that makes it wrongful for him to remain silent.

CACI No. 1901 citing SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Central Paciﬁc Bank 207 Cal.App.4th 859, 860 (2012).

The tort elements for concealment are:

1) The defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact;

2) The defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff;

3) The defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff;

4) The plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and

5) As a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.

Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248 (2011)

The Sorgan Krill Farmers would have had a duty to disclose their knowledge of the AT-ST, because the fact there was an Imperial Walker would have been voluntarily assumed by the contractual undertaking; that it would have arose as an incident of a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff; and it was just wrong for them to remain silent about the Walker. That was a material fact that went to the performance of the contract and should have been disclosed. However, it is unlikely the Farmers intended to defraud the Mandalorian and simply were clueless to the importance of disclosing the fact the fact there was an AT-ST. This did require an immediate contract modification to teach the Farmers how to defend themselves, opposed to voiding the contract.