Doc Brown & Train Wrecking in Back to the Future Part 3

By

-

September 23, 2013

There will always be a place in my heart for Back to the Future. Who doesn’t like saying “88 miles per hour,” or “1.21 gigawatts”?

But Great Scott, Doc Brown would be a wanted man in at least two different centuries. Blowing up trains and promising terrorists you will make a nuclear bomb have substantial legal consequences. There is no “science experiment” defense.

Old California Justice is Really Heavy

There is little doubt that California Governor George Stoneman would have sent troops to capture Doc Brown after stealing and blowing up a train in the name of science.

There were just too many witnesses in Hill Valley who watched Marty & Doc flee the scene after the fight with Mad Dog Tannen to not connect the train robbery to them. Exhibit A to the fact people knew Marty McFly was involved was the fact that Shonash Ravine was renamed Eastwood Ravine (Marty McFly’s alias in 1885). Connecting the dots to Doc Brown would not be hard, especially if anyone found Doc’s not-to-scale model in his shop.

The most on point California law to prosecute Doc Brown was not enacted until 1891, six years after the destruction of Locomotive 131 at Eastwood Ravine. California Penal Code § 218 specifically addresses “train wrecking” and “acts intended to wreck.” The law states:

Every person who unlawfully throws out a switch, removes a rail, or places any obstruction on any railroad with the intention of derailing any passenger, freight or other train, car or engine, or who unlawfully places any dynamite or other explosive material or any other obstruction upon or near the track of any railroad with the intention of blowing up or derailing any such train, car or engine, or who unlawfully sets fire to any railroad bridge or trestle, over which any such train, car or engine must pass with the intention of wrecking such train, car or engine, is guilty of a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life without possibility of parole.

Cal Pen Code § 218.

There is no question that Doc Brown and his co-conspirator Marty McFly threw the train switch with the intent of destroying Locomotive 131 at Shonash Ravine. If Cal Pen Code § 218 had been in effect in 1885, Doc and Marty both would have been charged under this statute.

In 1885, Doc Brown would have been charged under California Penal Code § 587, which prohibits injuries to railroads and railroad structures. The code states:

Every person who maliciously does either of the following is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year:

(a) Removes, displaces, injures, or destroys any part of any railroad, whether for steam or horse cars, or any track of any railroad, or any branch or branchway, switch, turnout, bridge, viaduct, culvert, embankment, station house, or other structure or fixture, or any part thereof, attached to or connected with any railroad.

(b) Places any obstruction upon the rails or track of any railroad, or of any switch, branch, branchway, or turnout connected with any railroad.

The law was enacted in 1872 and is still in effect in 2013. The annotated code further states:

Under Pen C § 587, making it a crime for any person to maliciously place an obstruction on the rails or track of any railroad, the intent required for a violation is the intent to place an obstruction on the rails or tracks of the railroad, and the malice required is that which would negate an accidental and unintended obstruction. Thus, in a prosecution for violation of the statute, the court’s refusal to instruct that violation required specific intent was not error. People v. Bohmer (1975, Cal App 4th Dist) 46 Cal App 3d 185, 120 Cal Rptr 136, 1975 Cal App LEXIS 1765, cert den (1975) 423 US 990, 46 L Ed 2d 308, 96 S Ct 402, 1975 US LEXIS 3463.

Point of No Return to Court

Doc Brown and Marty McFly placed the DeLorean on the train tracks with the intention of pushing the Time Machine to the uncompleted tracks at Shonash Ravine. These facts should be enough to warrant charges under Cal Pen Code § 587. While this 1872 statute is not as on point as Cal Pen Code § 218 for the offense of train wrecking, Doc Brown could be charged and convicted of violating § 587 in 1885.

Double Back to 1985

The DeLorean’s destruction by the freight train creates a legal paradox that spins “proximate cause” in Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad right on its turntable.

Here are the legally relevant, and temporal, facts:

Marty McFly & Doc Brown placed the DeLorean on the train tracks in 1885

Marty & Doc intended to destroy Locomotive 131 in 1885

Marty returned to 1985 on same train tracks after the destruction of Locomotive 131

DeLorean destroyed by freight train in 1985

Would there be criminal liability in 1985 for the DeLorean being run over the freight train? Was there any danger of a train derailment or explosion? Cal Pen Code § 218 and § 587 are still in effect, thus creating interesting legal analysis.

The issue comes down to intent on whether Marty McFly could be charged under Cal Pen Code § 218.

Marty and Doc had the intent to destroy Locomotive 131 in 1885. They did not the malicious intent for the DeLorean to be hit by a train in 1985.

Would the intent of the 1885 conspiracy transfer to 1985 as one continuous event under the law for violating Cal Pen Code § 218?

The Hill Valley District Attorney could legally argue yes, since time was relative to Marty.

McFly was traveling in a fusion powered time machine on train tracks. It is foreseeable that a train could also be traveling on the same train tracks as the DeLorean at the same time.

However, there would be a very strong statute of limitations defense against § 218, because the events of 1885 were 100 years in the past, long past the time to prosecute Doc & Marty for the destruction of Locomotive 131 (Never mind the fact the witnesses were all dead and the DA would have to rely on 100 year old documents). There was no intent to derail a train in 1985, thus making the issue one of reckless driving, negligence by placing a car with a fusion powered device from the future on active railroad tracks, or possibly a violation of § 587(b) by placing the DeLorean on train tracks as an obstruction, if malice could be implied by the act of placing the car on the train tracks.

George McFly & the Defense of Others in Back to the Future

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 19, 2013

1

Hey you, get your damn hands off her.

I think you got the wrong car McFly.

No Biff, you leave her alone.

George McFly knocking out Biff Tannen during the rescue of Lorraine Baines is one of the most memorable scenes in Back to the Future.

George represented the quintessential wimp who found his backbone against his tormentor when the girl of his destiny was in danger.

DeLoreans and gigawatts aside, it is time to go where Doc Brown never traveled to: inside a courtroom at the Courthouse.

Was George McFly in the legal right to knock out Biff Tannen? Could Biff press charges because George was the aggressor for throwing a punch at Biff? Did George violate California Penal Code section 242 by committing battery on Biff?

The answer is No.

Moreover, Biff should be tried as an adult and go to prison.

Make Like a Tree & Go to Jail

George McFly has an extremely powerful legal defense against Biff Tannen: George saved Lorraine Baines from Biff committing sexual battery on her.

George interrupted Biff’s sexual battery of Lorraine (if not outright attempted rape). A Court would find under California law that 1) Biff intended to cause a harmful contact with Lorraine’s body that resulted in sexually offensive contact; 2) that Lorraine did not consent to the touching; and 3) that Lorraine was harmed by Biff’s conduct. California Jury Instructions 1306 Sexual Battery–Essential Factual Elements.

The facts clearly show Biff was caught committing sexual battery on Lorraine. Biff had his hand up Lorraine’s skirt to engage in inappropriate touching. Lorraine did not consent to the touching, as evidence from her physically resisting Biff and asking George for help; and Lorraine was harmed by Biff, again evidence by the struggle in the car.

All of these facts show Biff Tannen was engaged in criminal conduct causing actual harm Lorraine Baines.

The Power of Love (And the Defense of Others)

The law does not require anyone to rescue another. There are no hue and cry laws in the United States compelling anyone to take action when a crime is in progress.

If George McFly was either prosecuted or sued for being the aggressor in the attack on Biff Tannen, his attorney would effectively be able to argue George acted in the defense of Lorraine Baines. The “defense of others” defense is part of the concept of self-defense, which dates back to 1872 and the passage of California Civil Code § 50. The Code states:

Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one’s family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest.

As a preliminary matter, would the defense of others apply to George and Lorraine? Yes, even though they were only classmates and not yet married in 1955. The jury instructions and case law do not require a family relationship. For example, in the 1986 case of People v. Kirk, 192 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 15, (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1986), a man who thought a woman was being raped in a car was entitled to argue he acted in defense of others for drawing a gun on the possible rapist to allow the woman to get away.

To prove George acted in the defense of Lorraine, George must prove that he 1) reasonably believed that Lorraine was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully; 2) George reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger; and 3) George only used the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to protect Lorraine and himself. 2-3400 CALCRIM 3470.

George witnessed Biff engaged in the act of committing sexual battery on Lorraine. George could reasonably believe that Lorraine was in danger based on what he witnessed and Lorraine specifically requesting help.

The physical altercation between Biff and George was immediately after George told Biff to “leave her alone.” While Biff did tower over George, it was George who threw the first [failed] punch.

The situation slightly shifts from defense of Lorraine to self-defense as Biff started twisting George’s arm around his back. Lorraine’s action of jumping upon Biff and hitting him would also be in the defense of others defense, because Lorraine was attempting to rescue her rescuer. The shifting fight does not degrade into mutual combat, because of the timing from George’s first demand on Biff to not harm Lorraine to the final punch.

George’s knock out blow to Biff would squarely fall under the defense of others jury instructions, because the entire encounter centered on protecting Lorraine from Biff’s battery. While there were times when George was the one in danger, this was all because he was trying to save Lorraine. The entire sequence of events must be viewed as one event, which all relates back to George acting in defense of Lorraine from Biff.

George only used the force necessary to stop Biff, as evidenced by George taking Lorraine to the safety of the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance after knocking out Biff. This would meet the final requirement of the jury instructions.

The police should have been called by the school and Biff arrested. However, the amount of time it would have taken for George and Lorraine to give their witness statements would have precluded them from going to the dance, having their first kiss and falling in love. This would have caused Marty McFly to cease to exist, which possibly would have caused a universe ending paradox because of his involvement in the events leading up to George knocking out Biff.

The Flux Capacitor of Justice

Back to the Future is perhaps the only family comedy that involves a character being rescued from sexual battery. It is almost like viewers recognize the extreme wrong that is happening, but our only acknowledgement of it is wanting George to save Lorraine.

The severity of Biff’s criminal conduct truly makes George’s actions all the more important. George did not turn and run. He recognized the look of terror on Lorraine’s face and stopped Biff from doing more harm.

There is no question George McFly did the right thing in knocking out Biff.

The character’s actions were not just morally right, but no judge or jury would let Biff prevail in a case against George McFly.

That being said, it is very odd that the George & Lorraine McFly ever employed Biff to work on the family’s cars.

One would expect Biff to have a lifetime restraining order to stay away from the McFlys.

However, there is a special justice to a bully’s life reduced to waxing cars.

Constitution Day

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 17, 2013

0

September 17, 2013 marks the 226 anniversary of the United States Constitution. Every President, Congressman, Senator, Judge, Soldier, Sailor, Civil Servant and Attorney has taken an oath to uphold and defend this document.

I always stand a little taller whenever I hear:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Constitution Day is just as important and the 4th of July. The Declaration of Independence was the kick-off to our country becoming the United States of America, but we would not be the United States of America without the Constitution. It is literally the document that binds us together, ensuring each of us are protected under the laws of the United States.

We also should never forget those who paid with their lives to defend our Constitution.

The History Geek

We briefly experimented with the Articles of Confederation after the Revolutionary War. It was a long lesson of how not to have a government. The Articles of Confederation were a failed experiment due to the inability to have any sort of national unity, the ability to tax or pay off debt. If left in place would have caused nothing by disunity, as states became their own nation-states.

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No 15, December 1, 1787

We Americans are a funny lot. The Constitutional Convention gathered with the intent to fix the Articles of Confederation, not draft a new Constitution. The fact this was pulled off is an impressive testimonial to James Wilson, James Madison and the other Founding Fathers. Somehow, Ben Franklin did not leak the Convention’s plans while drinking.

Nothing in America gets done without debate and usually name-calling. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers arguing for the Constitution under the pen name Publius. Ironically, one of the complaints was the fact the Constitution’s preamble said “We the People” and not “We the States.”

What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 51, February 6, 1788

The ratification battle was won, but the first order of business for the first Congress was establishing the Bill of Rights to ensure greater protection of personal liberty.

The Legal Geek

Why should we celebrate Constitution Day? Because many of our rights as US citizens are completely misunderstood by many of our countrymen. There is also the very real fear many of our rights are being eroded.

Justice is indiscriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.

Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794

Case in point: After the Boston Bombing, a self-identified liberal told me that “foreigners” do not deserve the right to counsel or a trial. She did not care the suspect in the attack was a naturalized US citizen. The Constitution should not apply to “them” in her worldview.

No, No and No. The Constitution protects everyone in the United States. Even the people we do not like that are charged with crimes. You have the right to be protected from unlawful searches; the right against self-incrimination; the right to counsel if charged by the state or Federal government; and the right to a trial. These rights are not simply suspended out of anger or fear. These rights must be applied to all, to ensure that no one is denied the equal protection and due process of law.

There is another issue: the expanding powers of the Government in the name of law enforcement and security. We have seen government agencies, both Federal and state, decide for themselves that the 4th Amendment does not apply to them. These cases include: U.S. v Pineda-Moreno 2010 U.S.App. Lexis 16708 (Aug. 12, 2010), where a GPS tracking device was put on a car parked by the police on a driveway without a warrant; the DEA’s Hemisphere Project, where AT&T employees paid by the DEA turn over call history via an administrative subpoena issued by the DEA, not a judge; to 1.5 million Americans being subject to a single search warrant issued by a secret court.

I did alright in both Criminal Procedure & Constitutional Law. I always thought the text of the 4th Amendment was pretty clear when it came to probable cause and warrants:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If law enforcement has probable cause, then get a warrant. That being said, I am still stunned there was one warrant to cover 1.5 million U.S. citizens.

Our Constitution is supposed to protect every US Citizen and those in the United States. It is not selectively applied. We attorneys have a duty to help educate the public on our rights. We also have a lot of work to do ourselves in ensuring all of our rights are protected. We do not want to wake up one morning to see our justice system has mutated into the Cyber-Star Chamber that would fit better in Oceania and not America.

So, my fellow attorneys sing the praises of our Constitution to your friends and neighbors. Never be afraid to fight for the Constitution. After all, we took an oath to uphold and defend it.

Back to the History Geek

September 17 is of historical note for the Civil War battle Antietam; Operation Market Garden in World War II; and the roll out of the Space Shuttle Enterprise. Of less historic note is it is also my birthday.

X-Files Jurisprudence: The Law is Out There

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 13, 2013

0

The X Files. A show that first aired on September 10, 1993. It defined the end of high school, college, law school and the beginning of my practice.

Caitlin Murphy, Esq., and I attended UC Davis together. We were in the same dorm in the Fall of 1996. Along with many of our classmates, the world shut down on Sundays at 900 pm as college students gathered in groups to watch Mulder and Scully face aliens, black oil, government conspiracies and some outright creepy cases.

Caitlin and I sat down to discuss three classic X-File episodes and the different legal issues presented in each one.

The Law is Out There.

eDiscovery Attorneys on The Paper Chase 40th Anniversary

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 10, 2013

0

John Jay Osborn’s The Paper Chase has instilled dread in the hearts of first year law students for the last 40 years. It is simply brilliant in how the film captures the stress of law school.

John Williams did the musical score of The Paper Chase long before Jaws. While the musical score does not have the same dramatic flare of a shark attack when a law student is asked a hypothetical, the silence of such scenes captures the moment of tension extremely well.

I watched The Paper Chase before the first week of law school in 1998 and thought, “Naw, that is not what it is like.”

I was wrong. Professors showed up with seating charts with our faces on it. I quickly realized the film would have many things in common with reality.

eDiscovery Attorneys on The Paper Chase

Jessica Mederson and I hosted a special 40th Anniversary video podcast of The Paper Chase with eDiscovery legend Professor Craig Ball, Caitlin Murphy, Esq., Director of Legal Marketing for Access Data Group and Kelly Twigger, Esq., of ESI Attorneys.

We discussed our law school experiences vs The Paper Chase and our insights on what legal education should include today to produce competent work-ready attorneys.

You Come Here with a Skull Full of Mush and Leave Thinking like a Lawyer

Think like a lawyer. I did not really comprehend how lawyers “thought” when I was preparing for law school. I knew it was not like the LSAT in determining how many clowns could fit in a car. Those idiotic questions nearly kept me out of law school.

The film does not outright explain it, but “thinking like a lawyer” involves analyzing facts and their relationship to the law.

No lawyer movie or TV show has ever really handled the subject of “thinking like a lawyer” well. The idea of breaking down the elements of negligence, or peppercorns for consideration, or the complexities of personal jurisdiction would melt the minds of most movie goers (or sour the prospective jury pool). It would not be a box office gold mine.

I spent many hours reading, highlighting passages and taking notes on my laptop in the library.

The Paper Chase is the best depiction of how lawyers learn to “think like a lawyer.” You see the students reading cases, highlighting relevant sections of text to identify issues and holdings. You experience the emotion of learning to think on your feet by watching the Socratic Method in full force. And no matter how well you did in college, there is always another question waiting to keep you on your toes.

Professor Kingsfield’s quote, “Through my questions, you learn to teach yourselves,” is extremely accurate in describing how law students learn to think like lawyers.

At least it was for me.

It is Hard Being the Living Extension of Tradition

The Paper Chase highlights several huge mistakes law students could make in their first year. These include:

Dividing Up Outlining Responsibilities in a Study Group

Bad idea. Only you know how you best study and learn. Moreover, you cannot be certain the other person has the same learning style as you. The best way to learn the law is to understand how you learn and do the work. There is no substitute.

Writing An 800 Page Outline

No first year should decide to write a treatise on any subject. You need to outline issues, case holdings and “learn to think like a lawyer.” This is not the time to write a book on a subject when you utterly lack the credibility and experience to do so at the expense of your other classes.

Not Taking Practice Exams

This is perhaps the best way to fail out of law school. You must read the cases, even the footnotes and understand how the law works. Taking practice exams empower law students to practice IRAC (Or CRAC, which starts with the Conclusion), which is identifying the relevant legal Issues, stating the Rule that applies, explaining the legal Analysis of how the facts and law relate, and stating a Conclusion. The most important element of IRAC or CRAC is Analysis. Underlining key terms helps in making it easier for professors to grade.

You also learn how your professor thinks, which will help you in the long run of preparing for the final exam.

Do Not Poison Relationships By Talking About Law School

The fictional Hart makes a huge error with a prospective girlfriend: He talks at length about law school and a professor.

Don’t do that.

Worse yet, Hart told his girlfriend, “I have not been working hard enough since spending time with you.”

Do not blame a girlfriend or boyfriend for you not studying enough. If you have any basis for emotional support, the last think you want to do is burn the bridge to someone who cares about you.

Reflections on Law School

No one goes to law school to enhance their self-esteem. It is an exhausting three years. There is stress from studying, stress from classes, and stress in finding a job.

There are also many foxhole friendships. A sense of adventure. And even a fondness looking back. John Jay Osborn wrote a very insightful essay on how his views changed of Harvard as his daughter prepared for law school.

There is also something else I experienced at law school: Kindness.

I actually was wait-listed for McGeorge. The summer I should have taken a LSAT course I instead worked 18-hour days at my mother’s business without pay. Dickens and Tolstoy would have been proud, but my LSAT score suffered dramatically for it. Landing in the purgatory of a wait-list was the result of not taking a prep class.

I decided to take action and not go down without a fight. I asked three professors from UC Davis if they would send in letters of recommendation on my behalf. A good friend from college brewed beer with two professors from McGeorge. One of those professors agreed to meet with me. After our meeting, he asked a few questions at the admissions office.

The Dean of Admissions called me after my letter campaign. I was accepted to McGeorge shortly before the beginning of the 1998 fall semester, based on my college grades, letters of recommendation and the inquiries of a very kind law professor.

I then worked my tail off for three years.

I was impressed by the dedication of my professors at McGeorge. They were tough, but I did not have any horror stories besides the usual ones. The professors were always available for office hours and willing to help the student who showed up with sweat on their brow from hours of studying.

Two of them of note: my Civil Procedure and Constitutional Law professors. My first year Civil Procedure professor masterfully used PowerPoint and graphics to breakdown the complexities of the code and cases. He wanted us to understand how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure worked and very effectively helped us understand complex cases like Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court and a litany of others.

Civil Procedure was my only A in my first year. I was my old prof’s research assistant between my Second and Third years of law school. I had no idea how knowing Civil Procedure would later impact my career as an eDiscovery attorney.

My Con Law professor was one of Ralph Nader’s “Raiders.” There was one of his Supreme Court cases in our book. He always wore a suit to class, treated everyone with respect and taught the subject, not his opinions. I had an A- in his class, just one point away from an A. He attended my swearing in ceremony as an attorney. Truly a class act.

As I look back on my personal law school experience, it is less The Paper Chase and more Stand By Me. I have had the good fortune to guest lecture at my alumni several times over the years. Today’s law students have many increased challenges when they graduate in finding a job, however we will always need good attorneys to represent those in legal jeopardy.

Preparing the Next Generation of Lawyers

I do not agree with President Obama that law school should be two years. The third year is extremely helpful in finding areas of law prospective attorneys are interested in practicing and continuing to build marketable skills.

That being said, law students need as many experiences as possible to prepare them for the practice of law. Law schools have done a good job with teaching students online legal research skills. Students have had free legal research accounts since the early 1990s from Lexis and Westlaw (and anyone can use Fastcase for free). Legal research is one of the basic building blocks to be able to practice law.

It is time for another step forward and teach students how to conduct document review in online repositories, summarize depositions, billing best practices and the software basics they will use everyday at any size firm. One only needs to look at the results of the technology audit from the General Counsel of Kia to see how painfully behind many attorneys are with basic technology.

Law schools would dramatically help their students with practical internships, paid positions and leveraging alumni to help build the experience of future attorneys. This would require career development offices to shift from finding jobs for the top 5% of a graduating class to putting an entire class of law students to work in their third year. Such an undertaking would be the Project Apollo for law schools in need of a Von Braun on every campus. It would not be easy and take very dedicated hard work. However, it is necessary for future attorneys to be competitive in the job market and competent in the practice of law.

Say Anything, Except Better Off Dead

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 4, 2013

0

Attorneys Jessica Mederson and Josh Gilliland discuss the legal issues in the John Cusack classics Say Anything and Better Off Dead.

Even More Star Wars Quoting Judges

By

Josh Gilliland

-

August 29, 2013

2

Josh_R2D2_0801 — Josh with R2D2 at The Geekie Awards 2013

I often wonder if Geek Judges call their Law Clerks Padawans.

Below are two more Judges who reference Star Wars in opinions.

One directly makes a Star Wars reference to shoot two proton torpedoes at an attorney’s argument; the other referencing testimony from a party.

Who Doesn’t Like a Judge Who Quotes Obi-Wan Kenobi?

Stapleton also demands a list of Dr. Harries’s publications over the last decade, a list of the cases in which he has testified over the same period, and a statement of his compensation. See R. 93 at 5. Without citation to authority or much supporting argument, Stapleton tries a unique line of attack. He directs the Court for “guidance” to the more detailed requirements of the analogous rule of civil procedure. See R. 45 at 5 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)). This attempted diversion—the legal equivalent of Obi-Wan Kenobi’s “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for,” see Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (Lucasfilm 1977)—is unavailing. “[D]iscovery afforded by Rule 16 is limited to the evidence referred to in its express provisions.” United States v. Presser, 844 F.2d 1275, 1285 (6th Cir. 1988). The government has already provided Dr. Harries’s reports and curriculum vitae. See R. 87 at 2. Because these documents amply cover his opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and his qualifications, Rule 16(a)(1)(G) is satisfied. The government has thus met its disclosure obligations regarding Dr. Harries’ testimony.

United States v. Stapleton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108189, 23-24 (E.D. Ky. July 31, 2013).

Would “Callrisian-esque” Be an Adjective?

Defendants, who referred to TestMasters as an “evil empire,” began working together in September and October 2004 on what would become Blueprint while all of them were still working for TestMasters. For example, on September 28, 2004 Teti wrote to Martin about the terms of a potential partnership agreement and how to compete successfully with TestMasters. On October 12, 2004 Teti wrote to Capuano, Triplett, and Martin “collectively for the first time,” distributing a list of “vital questions to consider” for their new business. By October 13, 2004 defendants were discussing the viability of forming a new business together, undercutting TestMasters’ price (by $250), and preparing for litigation with TestMasters. Defendants made plans in October 2004 to meet with attorneys to discuss these issues, and to get advice on what they “were and weren’t allowed to do in terms of figuring out whether this potential business was feasible while still employed by TestMasters.” Teti, Capuano, Triplett, and Martin met several more times in October 2004 to discuss creating their own LSAT preparation company, and by October 25 were referring to each other as partners and were working on structuring their course and creating course material for their new business that would be “very similar to the TM [TestMasters] course structure.” Capuano promised the others he would “not do anything ‘Callrisian-esque,'” which was his way of saying that he would not betray defendants to TestMasters, as the character Lando Calrissian (“the mayor of Cloud City” played by Billy D. Williams) had done in the Star Wars movie The Empire Strikes Back (Lucasfilm 1980).

Robin Singh Educ. Servs. v. Blueprint Test Preparation, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 537, 11-13 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Jan. 23, 2013).

The Court Will Be With You, Always

I believe there will always be Star Wars quoting judges. The Gen Xer’s now on the bench grew up with an X-wing fighter in hand, chasing a sibling with a Tie Fighter. Those sort of positive life long memories simply do not go away, they helped define a person. Those same attorneys and judges have watched The Clone Wars with their kids (or without) and are counting down the days until Episode VII is released.

The more interesting question is whether a Federal or State Court Judge will write the Star Wars Bench Book for judicial quotes for specific rulings…