Blog

0 280

Did Barry Allen save his mother and forever alter the timeline that turned him into The Flash? No, which is a good thing. However, his dad is still left in prison for being wrongfully convicted of killing Norma Allen in The Flash season finale.

How could a good lawyer help The Flash get his father out prison? It’s time to put on a Blue Power Ring, because there is hope of proving Henry Allen’s innocence in court.

States vary on the exact procedure for setting aside a conviction, but one option is to introduce new evidence showing the conviction was wrong. Some states require a new trial after the conviction is set aside.

Ohio law allows a defendant to seek a new trial and set aside a conviction when “When new evidence is discovered material to the defendant, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial.” ORC Ann. 2945.79(F). The defendant must produce “affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given,” and the state may produce affidavits to impeach any defense witnesses. Id.

New York permits a Court to vacate a judgment and set aside a sentence if “[n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant;” NY CLS CPL § 440.10(g). There must be supporting affidavits if the motion to vacate the judgment is based upon the existence of facts. NY CLS CPL § 440.30(a).

How could The Flash get his father out of prison with a similar statute to vacate a conviction based upon new evidence, without causing a paradox to destroy all of reality?

The answer: A Go Pro camera. Or Polaroid Cube. Basically any personal action camera could do the trick.

Flash_Daubert

The issue is having evidence that the Reverse Flash killed Norma Allen. One option for The Flash is to travel back in time before the murder, place an action camera in either the fish tank, or a book shelf, or some other part of the living room that is not visible or easily overlooked. The recording of the high speed blurs slowed down would demonstrate reasonable doubt that Henry Allen killed Norma Allen.

The big challenge is offering the video evidence in court. A Court would be rightfully confused if there was video footage from 2000 on a camera that did not exist in 2000. A District Attorney would rightfully challenge the authenticity of the video. Moreover, it is unlikely The Flash would appear to testify in Court.

One solution to this issue is the fact the police and District Attorney have openly cooperated together with The Flash. Detective Joe West could prepare an affidavit stating the recorded video was given to him by The Flash and that the footage accurately depicts the crime scene from the night Norma Allen was killed. A Judge in Central City, especially if the District Attorney was not contesting the footage, could find the new evidence either would justify a new trial if not outright setting aside Henry Allen’s conviction.

A lawyer from the Blue Lantern Corps could also give Henry Allen hope of proving actual innocence. In New York, new evidence could prove actual innocence if:

(1) The new evidence will probably change the result if a new trial is granted;

(2) It must have been discovered since the trial;

(3) It must be such as could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence;

(4) It must be material to the issue;

(5) It must not be cumulative; and

(6) It must not be merely impeaching or contradictory to the former evidence.

See People v Marino, 99 AD3d 726, 730; People v Tankleff, 49 AD3d at 179.

Video evidence of a yellow blur killing Norma Allen would 1) change the result of Henry Allen’s conviction if there is a new trial; 2) the video evidence would be discovered after the trial, since the technology to record it was invented over a decade later and required time travel to use; 3) there was no way the Defense Attorney’s due diligence could have found evidence only available from time travel; 4) the video would be material to the issue of who killed Norma Allen; 5) the evidence is not cumulative; and 6) it is not offered impeach or contradictory to the former evidence, but verifying what Henry and Barry Allen claimed they saw the night Norma Allen was killed by the Reverse Flash.

The Agents of SHIELD Season 2 finale contained a happy ending for Calvin “Mr. Hyde” Zabo. After killing his wife who had planned to commit genocide on humanity with Terrigen Crystals as a eugenic weapon, Mr. Hyde had a unique sentence: Memory erased and his own veterinarian clinic to help pets that need love and healing. After all, the world needs professionals who help animals.

Was that legal?

Calvin Zabo had committed multiple counts of murder, illegal human experimentation, and criminal conspiracy in several states. Moreover, the People’s Republic of China would have an interest in prosecuting him for murdering a village in order to “feed” Jiaying their life energies.

MrHyde_Trial_1268

Director Coulson unilaterally decided that Zabo would be pardoned for his crimes, but Zabo’s mind would be erased. This decision is problematic, because Zabo had a 7th Amendment right to a trial for his crimes and a 6th Amendment right to counsel. Both seemed to have been ignored. Furthermore, conducting a medical experiment without a prisoner’s consent to erase his memory would definitely violate the 8th Amendment prohibition again cruel and unusual punishment. To be blunt, Court’s just don’t let people get lobotomized.

People who are involuntarily committed have the right to refuse psychosurgery. (See, Cal Wel & Inst Code § 4503, as one state example). This right can only overwritten on a showing of good cause, which includes treating physicians documenting the treatment needed, a review of the patient’s treatment record by two treating physicians who both agree with the recommended treatment, and written consent by the patient or the person’s guardian. Cal Wel & Inst Code § 5326.7.

This process does not appear to have been followed. In theory, Dr. Andrew Garner’s (Agent May’s ex-husband) could have been the treating physician to make the treatment recommendation. No other psychologists are known, but would others have agreed with erasing Calvin’s memories? Skye/Daisy could have provided written consent, but this still would be a grossly invasive procedure to erase someone’s life.

Director Coulson apparently acted as the prosecutor, judge, and jury in determining Zabo’s sentence to a happy life with no memory of crimes. Director Coulson effectively pardoned Zabo for his crimes and then expunged his criminal record. There is just no way Coulson’s actions were legal, but Zabo did help save humanity. That would be worth a limited pardon from a President and multiple governors. Plus the world needs good veterinarians. Just think of all the puppies Cal can help, opposed to being in prison or a mental hospital for the rest of his life.

0 268

Blizzard Entertainment, creator of World of Warcraft (“WoW”), banned over 100,000 accounts for violations of the game’s Terms of Use. These accounts were engaged in “botting,” which is the practice of using third party programs to automate gameplay. Although botting had always been present in WoW, and similar such games, it had become a substantial issue of late. Bots were reportedly being used for repetitive, mundane tasks and also to farm player vs. player “honor points” in order to purchase better equipment. The botting problem was so prevalent in farming “honor points” that player vs. player arenas were reportedly filled with these bots, making the game very frustrating for actual players attempting to gain “honor points” legitimately. Fortunately, Blizzard has confronted botting before, and has established protective measures in its Terms of Use agreement.

Wow_iStock

WoW’s Terms of Use specifically states “You agree that you will not, under any circumstances: (A) use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the World of Warcraft experience.” Additionally, Blizzard expressly reserved the right to ban accounts for any reason. However, the Terms of Use states that “most account suspensions, terminations and/or deletions are the result of violations of the Terms of Use.” Such clear language in the Terms of Use easily grants Blizzard the authority to take action as necessary when players are found to be botting. Although it is safe to assume that most gamers do not read the Terms of Use for the games they play, it is well known within the WoW community, and gaming community at large, that the use of bots could result in an account ban.

Blizzard has long opposed botting, and has even taken legal action against companies that make botting software used in its games. In 2006, MDY Industries LLC, the creator of a WoW botting software, sought a declaratory judgment against Blizzard that it did not infringe on Blizzard’s copyrights (2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53988). However, Blizzard asserted counterclaims under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and tortious interference with contract. Although Blizzard’s counterclaims were successful at the district court level, the Ninth Circuit reversed. Ultimately, after five years of litigation, the case was settled in favor of Blizzard.

Blizzard recently attempted to sue the creator of Honorbuddy, a popular third party botting software, in Germany. However, Blizzard was unsuccessful in this case, and withdrew its application for an injunction earlier this month. Honorbuddy had prided itself on being undetectable by Blizzard. However, it is thought that the very recent failure in Court against Honorbuddy was the motivation behind finding a method of detecting the botting software, and the subsequent, massive ban of many Honorbuddy users. With the ban of a substantial number of its users and narrowly escaping litigation, the creator of Honorbuddy has effectively shut down the application for the time being.

Apparently, Blizzard’s mighty ban hammer may be enough to stem the tide of botting villainy. Although 100,000 accounts is a substantial number to ban by any means, WoW maintains a subscriber base of 7.1 million people. Banned accounts will be able to access the WoW servers in six months, so the countless hours that players have put in to creating their characters will not all be for naught. Hopefully these players have learned that violations of WoW’s Terms of Use will result in punishment, and not seek to gain a competitive advantage through any illicit means.

Roger Quiles is an attorney from New York City with a practice focusing in business, entertainment, and eSports law. A die-hard gamer since Super Mario Bros., Roger now represents professional gamers, tournament producers, and the businesses that serve them. Up, up, down, down, left, right, left right, B, A, Start.