Jessica Mederson & Josh Gilliland discuss the classic show Quantum Leap & the episode “So Help Me God.” The Legal Geeks review case law from the 1930s to 1960s on the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel and 5th Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination.
No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Quantum Leap was time travel classic based on the premise the hero, Dr. Sam Beckett, could travel within his own lifetime by “leaping” into a specific individual in the past. This “string theory” of time travel allowed for five seasons setting right what once went wrong across the 1950s to 1980s.
In the episode So Help Me God, Sam was a southern lawyer defending an African American woman accused of murdering the son of the most powerful man in town. And yes, Sam exclusively wore bow ties.
The story took place beginning on July 29, 1957 and the “murder” on June 15, 1957 in a fictional parish of Louisiana.
The Defendant who did not want to testify on her own behalf, which included not challenging the false confession she signed. As the story progressed, it was revealed that the Defendant was a victim of rape and physical abuse at the hands of the “victim.” The story’s bombshell was the victim’s mother was the one who actually killed the victim while he was beating the Defendant. The mother had also given the Defendant money before the son attacked her, so the girl could escape to a better life. Out of loyalty, the Defendant was not willing to testify to avoid saying that the victim’s mother had killed her own son.
The episode touched on multiple legal issues for the Defendant:
The problem with several of these issues was the story took place in 1957, while Constitutional rights were in “flux.” The right to counsel under the 5th and 6th Amendments was still developing case law (and continue to have cases that have reached the US Supreme Court even in the last decade).
A Review of United State Supreme Court Case Law
The string theory of time travel was awesome for Quantum Leap, but only tangles up Supreme Court jurisprudence. Below is a timeline of pivotal cases on the right to counsel.
Right to Counsel in Capital Cases
The 1932 Supreme Court case Powell v Alabama is one of the early cases law students learn about in Criminal Procedure. The United States has never not believed in the right to counsel (we wrote it into the 6th Amendment for a reason), but there were issues in states publicly providing attorneys to the poor charged with a crime.
Powell v Alabama held that a state violated a defendant’s 14th Amendment due process rights by denying a defendant access to effective assistance of counsel in capital cases. Powell v. Ala., 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932).
Powell involved defendants who were initially represented at their arraignment, but did not have an attorney until the trial. The defendants were convicted and sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court held the defendants did not have the aid of counsel between the time of their arraignment until the trial. The Court further looked at the defendants education, youthful age and public hostility to them. As Justice Sutherland stated for the Court:
It never has been doubted by this court, or any other so far as we know, that notice and hearing are preliminary steps essential to the passing of an enforceable judgment, and that they, together with a legally competent tribunal having jurisdiction of the case, constitute basic elements of the constitutional requirement of due process of law. The words of Webster, so often quoted, that by “the law of the land” is intended “a law which hears before it condemns,” have been repeated in varying forms of expression in a multitude of decisions. In Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 389, the necessity of due notice and an opportunity of being heard is described as among the “immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no member of the Union may disregard.”
What, then, does a hearing include? Historically and in practice, in our own country at least, it has always included the right to the aid of counsel when desired and provided by the party asserting the right. The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he had a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect. If in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense.
Powell v. Ala., 287 U.S. 45, 68-69 (U.S. 1932).
Let’s leap forward to Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1942).
No Right to Appointed-State Counsel in Non-Capital Cases
Betts held there was no right to state-appointed counsel in every case a defendant was charged with a crime and unable to retain an attorney. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1942).
The Betts decision has long been in the Supreme Court graveyard. It literally offends conservative and liberal attorneys alike today, because it highlights anyone can be prosecuted without any hope of a defense against the state who cannot afford a lawyer themselves (or a willingness to bankrupt themselves or spend their entire life savings in mounting a defense).
However, Betts is remembered for Justice Black’s powerful dissent:
A practice cannot be reconciled with “common and fundamental ideas of fairness and right,” which subjects innocent men to increased dangers of conviction merely because of their poverty. Whether a man is innocent cannot be determined from a trial in which, as here, denial of counsel has made it impossible to conclude, with any satisfactory degree of certainty, that the defendant’s case was adequately presented. No one questions that due process requires a hearing before conviction and sentence for the serious crime of robbery. As the Supreme Court of Wisconsin said, in 1859, “. . . would it not be a little like mockery to secure to a pauper these solemn constitutional guaranties for a fair and full trial of the matters with which he was charged, and yet say to him when on trial, that he must employ his own counsel, who could alone render these guaranties of any real permanent value to him. . . . Why this great solicitude to secure him a fair trial if he cannot have the benefit of counsel?” Carpenter v. Dane County, 9 Wis. 274, 276-277.
///
Denial to the poor of the request for counsel in proceedings based on charges of serious crime has long been regarded as shocking to the “universal sense of justice” throughout this country. In 1854, for example, the Supreme Court of Indiana said: “It is not to be thought of, in a civilized community, for a moment, that any citizen put in jeopardy of life or liberty, should be debarred of counsel because he was too poor to employ such aid. No Court could be respected, or respect itself, to sit and hear such a trial. The defence of the poor, in such cases, is a duty resting somewhere, which will be at once conceded as essential to the accused, to the Court, and to the public.” Webb v. Baird, 6 Ind. 13, 18. And most of the other States have shown their agreement by constitutional provisions, statutes, or established practice judicially approved, which assure that no man shall be deprived of counsel merely because of his poverty. Any other practice seems to me to defeat the promise of our democratic society to provide equal justice under the law.
Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 476 (U.S. 1942)
Why is Justice Black’s dissent relevant? Because Justice Black wrote the majority opinion in Gideon v Wainwright.
Overturning Betts & The Right to Counsel
Gideon v Wainwright is a wonderful example of how a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court can enable a Justice to put right what once went wrong.
Gideon was found guilty by a judge (there was no jury) and sentenced to eight years in prison. Gideon had demanded a lawyer “because the Supreme Court said he was entitled to one” and was denied one by the state, because he was not charged with a capital offense. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963).
Justice Black (probably with a great sense of justice and a smile after 21 years) explained the Betts decision was a departure from established precedents on the right to counsel and was overturned. Moreover, by overturning Betts, the Court “restore[d] constitutional principles established to achieve a fair system of justice.” Justice Black drove home the point with the following:
Not only these precedents but also reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public’s interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (U.S. 1963) (emphasis added).
Right to Counsel Under the 5th & 6th Amendments
The rights defined and explained in Miranda v Arizona are the most relevant to the Quantum Leap story, because there was no question under the law in 1957 that the fictional Defendant was entitled to counsel under Powell, because the case against her was murder (a capital offense). However, the case law review is helpful in understanding how the Supreme Court would issue the Miranda opinion in 1966.
Miranda is an extremely large opinion detailing the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and right to counsel under the 6th Amendment.
In one relevant passage the Court held:
Accordingly we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead. Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right.
Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 471-472 (U.S. 1966).
Our fictional Defendant was not informed of those rights and was coerced into signing a confession she herself could not even read (violating both her 5th and 6th Amendment rights). As such, the confession would have been suppressed under the Miranda decision….if it was 1966 and not 1957.
However, there was case law from the 1950s that would have thrown out the confession based on coercion. However, without the Defendant testifying about the confession, Sam would have had to deliver impressive cross-examinations on the police in a town fueled on racism and bent on convicting the fictional Defendant. Not an easy task for a seasoned litigator, let alone a time traveler without a law degree.
The Leap Home
Quantum Leap was a highly endearing series, because it often showed the best parts of America’s past standing up to the ugliest. Moreover, it showed one person could make a positive difference in helping others (who in turn could help others, as seen in the final episode). While So Help Me God was not the perfect episode on trial advocacy, it highlighted excellent issues in Constitutional Law.
On an anomaly in an impossibility in 1973, Doctor Who fans learned the First Law of Time: You cannot cross your own timeline.
Unless of course it is a 10th anniversary special. Then reverse the polarity of the neutron flow and go big.
The Three Doctors was the anniversary story arc of Doctor Who that united the first three Doctors on an adventure to save the universe from a rogue Time Lord named Omega.
The Time Lords, self-appointed guardians of time, were under an attack that was draining their power used for time travel (there was an OPEC Embargo in 1973, which probably inspired the writers for the Time Lord “energy crisis”). Given the severity of the threat, they made the decision to enable the three Doctors from different timelines to work together.
The Time Lords had one very big rule: The First Rule of Time prohibited a Time Lord from crossing his own timeline.
This probably was designed to avoid the risk of creating a paradox that could destroy all of reality.
However, when pressed on the First Rule of Time, one Time Lord on Gallifrey stated, “The First Law of Time will be observed… later.”
No phrase better describes what a society is willing to do in a hegemonic war with everything on the line. The Time Lord easily could have been “The Constitution will be observed…later.”
One only needs to look at the US Civil War to see President Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus as the fires of secession spread across the Maryland as one example of breaking the law out of the necessity to save the United States. President Lincoln could not afford for Maryland also to join the Confederacy, leaving Washington, DC an island in hostile waters.
If there is a serious threat, countries are willing to violate their own laws (or well established principles) to save themselves from extinction.
The same could be said for Gallifrey and the Time Lords. When their existence was threaten with a de facto state of war, stepping outside of the law was a better alternative than being destroyed.
In the event of a trial of a Time Lord who ordered the First Law of Time violated, the best defense would be a necessity/self-defense arguement, focusing on the fact the violation that they ordered was necessary to avoid greater harm caused by the attack.
Dueling Dual Doctors
Violating the First Law of Time enabled fans to see the Second and Third Doctors argue with each other.
Additionally, fans all enjoyed a good chuckle when the First Doctor addressed the Second and Third Doctors as, “So you are my replacements: A dandy and a clown.”
Time & War
The villain Omega had qualities similar to Khan Noonien Singh, because Omega was Hell-bent on revenge on the Time Lords for spending several thousand years trapped in a black hole (just as Khan wanted revenge for his exile and death of his wife on City Alpha Five against James T. Kirk).
Omega liked to scream and seemed a second away from a total nervous breakdown. Omega also had charming statements like, “Absolute power is absolute freedom” and that he [Omega] “should have been a god.”
Omega’s attack on Gallifrey created a de facto state of war with the Time Lords. Given the fact Gallifrey was a sovereign planet with a unified government, they were entitled to defend themselves. Countries on Earth have the right to self-defense recognized under the Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, Article 51. Additionally, while there are recognized rules on war, time travel is something not addressed in the Geneva Convention. Moreover, there is no known prohibition of using a recorder as a WMD.
Given the corner Omega boxed the Time Lords into, there really was not other option besides violating the First Law of Time. The alternative was extermination.
In the end, the Doctors defeated Omega and the violation of the First Law of Time was justified for the greater good. And…the First Law of Time would be broken again in The Five Doctors for the 20th Doctor Who Anniversary, The Two Doctors and Time Crash (and arguably The Trial of a Time Lord).
We should expect the law violated again for the 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who in 2013. Who knows…we might learn how the 8th Doctor used The Moment to end the Time War.
Jessica Mederson & Josh Gilliland discuss whether the Goonies keep One-Eyed Willy’s treasure.
No part of this recording should be considered legal advice for any would-be treasure hunters.
Proving lawyers can do cosplay, Josh Gilliland & Jessica Mederson discuss assumption of risk and wearing a Red Shirt in Star Trek The Original Series.
No part of this video should be considered legal advice.
There are some jobs so inherently dangerous that there is only the knowing assumption of risk for engaging in the activity. One such job is being a Red Shirt.
In Star Trek, The Original Series (TOS), wearing a Red Shirt was like being marked for death.
The three seasons of Star Trek had 43 Red Shirts die (a total of 59 crew members “died” in TOS).
That means over 70% of mission fatalities in the series were Red Shirts (Thank you Matt Bailey at Site Logic for the excellent research & analysis).
Those statistics certainly give new meaning to the Vulcan saying of “live long and prosper.”
To put these numbers in perspective, other fictional characters with an abnormally high mortality rate include:
1) Serving as the commanding officer of the Battlestar Pegasus (Admiral Cain, Commander Fisk and Commander Garner were all killed in a matter of several episodes on Battlestar Galactica); and
2) A mom in a Disney movie.
Need evidence? Just ask Bambi. Or Nemo. Or Belle. Or Cinderella. Or Ariel. Or Jasmine. Or Snow White. Or Tod (from The Fox & The Hound). Or Mowgli (from The Jungle Book).
And may God have mercy on a Disney mom in a red shirt.
Turned into Cube and Crushed: In By Any Other Name, Yeoman Leslie Thompson was turned into cube and crushed in an alien’s bare hands.
This was the only time a female Red Shirt died on an away mission with Captain Kirk.
Killed by Plant: One Red Shirt met his unfortunate end after being shot by a “Pod Plant” in The Apple.
The episode also included exploding rocks, lightning and tribal villagers killing Red Shirts.
Vaporized: There is no shortage of Red Shirts who are shot with a laser beam and vaporized. Notable examples include Nomad killing three Red Shirts in The Challenging.
Vampire Cloud: A Dikironium Cloud was an alien that absorbed every red blood corpuscle from its Red Shirt victims in Obsession.
Beamed into Space by Sadistic Children: Get your phaser out if there are children performing a creepy chant “Hail, hail, fire and snow, call the angel, we will go, far away, for to see, friendly angel come to me.” Bad things are about to happen.
And the Children Shall Lead saw the deaths of two Red Shirts who were beamed into space, thanks to the pack of children in desperate need of therapy who used their mental powers to make the crew believe they were in orbit around a planet.
Killed by Alien: There are many incidents of aliens killing Red Shirts. Just take the death of the Security Officer by the Horta in The Devil in the Dark.
The Horta was the last of her race and laying eggs to repopulate her species. Construction threatened her children, prompting the mother to defend her offspring. While definitely not an evil life form, a Red Shirt was killed by the Horta’s highly corrosive acid.
For Starfleet to limit liability for people being turned into cubes or beamed into space, Starfleet recruits need to know the possible risk to their lives.
Assumption of Risk generally requires an express agreement (there can be implied assumption of risk from conduct), knowledge of the risk, and voluntary assumption of the activity (see, generally Assumption of Risk).
Military personnel and emergency rescue professional understand their jobs have risks that might kill or seriously injury them (this in the broadest sense is known as The Fireman’s Rule). However, just because firemen, paramedics and police know their job has the risk of death, does not mean there are not situations where they can recover from a part for their injuries. For example, under California Civil Code § 1714.9:
(a) Notwithstanding statutory or decisional law to the contrary, any person is responsible not only for the results of that person’s willful acts causing injury to a peace officer, firefighter, or any emergency medical personnel employed by a public entity, but also for any injury occasioned to that person by the want of ordinary care or skill in the management of the person’s property or person, in any of the following situations:
(1) Where the conduct causing the injury occurs after the person knows or should have known of the presence of the peace officer, firefighter, or emergency medical personnel.
(2) Where the conduct causing injury violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation, and the conduct causing injury was itself not the event that precipitated either the response or presence of the peace officer, firefighter, or emergency medical personnel.
(3) Where the conduct causing the injury was intended to injure the peace officer, firefighter, or emergency medical personnel.
Cal Civ Code § 1714.9
The “Fireman’s Rule” is defined under case law as “– a person who, fully aware of the hazard created by the defendant’s negligence, voluntarily confronts the risk for compensation.” Ries v. Lee, 115 Cal. App. 3d 332, at *334-335 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1981).
Case law provides excellent examples of when barring recover is proper on assumption of risk and when it is not. Consider the following:
Police officer who was in a high-speed chase was barred under the “fireman’s rule” from recovering damages he sustained during his pursuit of the driver in the course of his occupation. Ries v. Lee, 115 Cal. App. 3d 332 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1981).
A car driven by a second suspect hit a police officer after he arrested the first suspect. The police officer could recover, because assumption of risk for which the officer must face based on the public policy “. . . was not intended to be so all inclusive as to encompass intentional torts directed against the fireman or officer while trying to perform his duties after he has been called to the scene of a law violator.” Shaw v. Plunkett, 135 Cal. App. 3d 756, 759-760 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1982), citing Krueger v. City of Anaheim (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 166.
Dog groomer was not barred from recovery after being bitten by a dog, because the beast remained at all times under the exclusive control of defendant, who had uncaged it and was holding it on a leash. The plaintiff had not determined if she would be able to groom the dog due to its vicious behavior and the dog remained in defendant’s exclusive control at the time of the bite. Prays v. Perryman, 213 Cal. App. 3d 1133, 1137 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1989).
Train employee was not barred from recovery for injuries he received after riding a switch engine between his areas of employment, because 1) riding the engine between the two places of employment had been customarily done by the employee and other employees, 2) such practice was not forbidden by the employer, and 3) riding the switch engine was the only method of travel between those points was along the railroad tracks. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Industrial Acci. Com., 18 Cal. 2d 40, 44-45 (Cal. 1941).
To Boldly Go…On An Away Team
The mission of Starfleet is to “seek out new life and civilizations” and “boldly go where no one has gone before.”
By the very nature of Starfleet’s mandate, there is risk with going boldly off into the unknown of space.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that every new life form and civilization is going to be friendly.
Or like the color red.
So, what does this mean for our brave Red Shirts?
Given a 70% mission fatality rate, they should recognize becoming a Security Officer or Engineer is profoundly dangerous (And possibly a bad life choice).
Considering a career in Science, Medical, or Command statistically looks safer (It is worth noting that the Lt. Areel Shaw, the only Starfleet lawyer in The Original Series, wore red).
However, Blue and Yellow Shirts have had been murdered by possessed shipmates as in Wolf in the Fold or killed with giant spears in The Galileo Seven. No career choice is ever totally safe, especially one that voyages into the unknown.
The Needs Of The Many Outweigh The Needs of the Few (in Red Shirts)
Red Shirts arguably are fully aware there are hazards in “boldly going where no one has gone before,” and voluntarily confront those risks by joining Starfleet. While that would certainly be true for “normal” injuries sustained in the line of duty, it is not a universal constant.
There are situations when a Red Shirt (or their surviving family) could sue a tortfeasor for injuries they have sustained.
The issue would be whether the injury was sustained in the “normal” course of Starfleet service (such as shorting out circuits in a Jeffries Tube or a battle with Klingons) or when someone intentionally created a dangerous situation directed against the Red Shirt while they were performing their duties. Examples of intentional conduct would include a scientist harboring a creature that will suck the salt out of people (The Man Trap) or not stopping a war game with a computer that vaporizes Red Shirts and destroys other Starships (The Ultimate Computer).
Finally, considering all of the Red Shirt fatalities based on intentional conduct, it is surprising that no plaintiffs law firms were created specializing in Red Shirt tortuous injuries.
Jessica Mederson & Josh Gilliland discuss the classic TV show Cheers, including favorite characters and issues of contract law.
No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.