Home Blog

Batman – The Long Halloween

0

The Jeff Loeb and Tim Sale Batman story The Long Halloween is hailed as one of the greatest Batman stories and heavily inspired Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy. The Long Halloween covers Batman, Harvey Dent, and Jim Gordon’s crusade to take down Carmine “The Roman” Falcone. In the midst of combining vigilante, legal, and police justice, a mysterious serial killer appears who begins killing individuals close to Falcone on holidays. However, killing is not the only crime that goes on in The Long Halloween. The heroes and villains of the story are embroiled in schemes that result in a colorful assortment of crimes.

Halloween

On the first holiday of the tale, Batman and Harvey Dent team up to hit Falcone where it hurts. After Bruce Wayne prevents Falcone from storing his money with Gotham City Bank, Falcone is forced to store his cash in a warehouse. After a jaded legal campaign against Falcone, Dent realizes that he won’t be able to hurt Falcone as the district attorney. Instead, Dent convinces Batman to help him bring the heat to Falcone and the two of them turn Falcone’s warehouse into the inside of a Jack-o-lantern on Halloween. Unfortunately for Batman and Dent, the destruction of Falcone’s cash stores violates Title 18 United States Code § 333, i.e. the destruction of any bank bill issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System. Luckily for Batman, the punishment is only a fine or imprisonment of less than six months. Unluckily for Dent, he may be disbarred for committing a felony.

Thanksgiving

After Falcone orders some hitmen to detonate an explosive in Dent’s home on Halloween, Batman, Dent, and Gordon hatch a plot to catch Falcone. The Crusading Trio capture the criminal outfit, dubbed “The Irish,” responsible for the bombing and Dent impersonates their leader Mickey “The Mink” Sullivan in hopes of obtaining some incriminating information from them when they are stuck in jail for the night. Hopefully Dent paid attention in his Criminal Procedure class because depending on how he approached the other members of “The Irish,” whatever information he obtained could have been suppressed. Under United States v. Henry, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment prohibits use of government informants to “deliberately elicit” confessions or other incriminating statements from defendants after the right to counsel has attached. 447 U.S. 264, 274 (1980). However, no formal indictment had been filed against “The Irish” yet so anything Dent heard while impersonating Mickey may still be admissible. Unfortunately for Dent, “The Irish” had their statements rehearsed and none of their statements could connect Falcone to “The Irish’s” fowl play.

Christmas

The Joker becomes infuriated with the so-called “Holiday” serial killer taking away his limelight and begins his hunt for whoever the killer is. In order to determine the killer’s identity, the Joker pays a visit to Carmine Falcone’s residence. While there, the Joker attacks Falcone with his joker playing cards. While the offensive touching of Falcone will certainly constitute assault and battery, can the Joker be convicted for assault with a deadly weapon? In People v. Lochtefeld, the California Court of Appeal cited to California Penal Code § 245 which defines a deadly weapon as “any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing, and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury.” While California’s definition of deadly weapon is quite giving, it’s unlikely a court would be so generous as to find regular playing cards a deadly weapon. Joker uses the cards to achieve a theatrical effect rather than a practical one.

New Year’s Eve

After having no luck with Falcone, the Joker makes a resolution to find the “Holiday” killer with any means possible. In turn, the Joker hijacks a plane and attempts to drop his signature laughing gas on a giant crowd of Gothamites welcoming in the New Year. Here, the Joker is violating two major U.S. codes: 49 U.S.C. § 46502 and 18 U.S.C. § 2332a. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46502, “aircraft piracy” constitutes the seizing and exercise of control of an aircraft by means of force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent. Considering the Joker sent the aircraft ground crew to a merry death, the Joker will definitely be violating this federal statute. But the Joker rarely ends at just a hijacking; 18 U.S.C. § 2332a criminalizes the use of a weapon of mass destruction against any person or property within the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(c)(2)(C) defines a weapon of mass destruction as any weapon involving a biological agent or toxin. Considering Joker’s laughing gas leaves its victims with a wide grin and no heartbeat, it is likely to fall within this definition.

Valentine’s Day

Falcone’s failed attempts to reason with Bruce Wayne lead Falcone to target Wayne’s heart rather than continue negotiating with him. Falcone hires Poison Ivy to use her powers to mind control Bruce Wayne into approving the deal between Falcone and Gotham City Bank. While there are no laws on point in regards to meta-human powers, there are laws on the use of poison on individuals. Poison Ivy’s powers are derived from her control of plants and pheromones which are essentially poisons or naturally created drugs. The application of drugs or poisons against someone is likely to be considered some form of battery or assault depending on the jurisdiction. The California legislature enacted a specific statute to address the issue. California Penal Code § 222 criminalizes the act of administering a drug or other controlled substance against another individual in order to enable themselves to commit a felony. Poison Ivy intentionally pricks Bruce Wayne with a poisoned rose thorn which introduces a chemical substance into Wayne’s bloodstream that causes him to obey Ivy’s every command. Ivy could find herself behind bars from sixteen months to three years on top of any other felony she commits while Wayne is under her influence. In addition, Ivy’s actions would probably land her on Gotham’s sex offender registry.

St. Patrick’s Day

Carla Vitti, Carmine Falcone’s sister, “forg[e]ts” to give Gotham police the gun used to kill her nephew, Alberto Carmine. After Carla’s own son is killed on Halloween with the same model gun, a .22, Carla conceals the gun from police investigation in hopes of using the gun to kill “Holiday.” Under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, the concealment of any tangible object with the intent to impede the investigation of any matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States can be punishable by up to twenty years. Carla’s purposeful concealment and intention to use the gun against the “Holiday” killer will likely land her with up to twenty years in prison. Unfortunately for Carla, luck was not on her side as she would not survive her next encounter with the “Holiday” killer.

Mother’s Day

Jonathan Crane, AKA the Scarecrow, douses Batman with some of his signature fear gas while escaping from Arkham Asylum. While under the effects of Crane’s fear gas, Batman, now under the guise of Bruce Wayne, visits Crime Alley, the site where his parents were murdered. Simultaneously, Commissioner Gordon and Harvey Dent agree to initiate a momumental manhunt for Bruce Wayne, believing he has ties with Carmine Falcone. Gordon and his police force spot Wayne in Crime Alley and attempt to arrest him but he flees from them and retreats to his mother’s gravestone. Under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) any person who “willfully resists, delays or obstructs” any police officer in the fulfillment of his or her duty can be fined up to one thousand dollars to imprisoned in a county jail up to one year. Because Wayne flees from the police at Crime Alley, he could be guilty of this law; however, because Wayne was under the effects of Scarecrow’s fear gas, he may have a defense. Under California law, involuntary intoxication is considered an absolute defense for crimes that require intent or a mental state. Wayne could argue that he was unable to form the intent to “willfully” resist arrest because he was involuntarily sprayed with the fear gas. However, some anti-Batman critics may say that Bruce Wayne’s nocturnal hobbies constitute a voluntary exposure to such side effects and that a reasonable vigilante should expect to be sprayed with a fear toxin here and there.

Father’s Day

On Father’s Day, Falcone realizes that he can no longer depend on ordinary thugs to carry out his plans. While hiring two members of The Rogues Gallery might get things done, Falcone could not see father than the end of his nose. By inviting two a man dressed in a scarecrow costume that uses fear gas and a man dressed as the Hatter, Falcone broke his crime family’s cardinal rule of not hiring “freaks.” Under 18 U.S.C. § 373, any person who attempts to solicit another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a felony that involves the use or threatened use of physical force against another person can be punished by either a life imprisonment or death. Here, Falcone attempts to hire Scarecrow and Mad Hatter to help him take care of Batman. Since Falcone is soliciting the two villains to dispose of Batman, Dent would probably be able to convict Falcone of solicitation. Regrettably, Falcone is likely to have every judge and their father on his payroll.

Independence Day

On Independence Day, Scarecrow and Mad Hatter lace fireworks with Scarecrow’s fear gas use it to help them break into Gotham City Bank. The two villains could be prosecuted for violating both 18 U.S.C. § 2332a and 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Like the Joker’s plot on New Year’s Eve, the use of fireworks as a vehicle to disperse poisonous fear gas across the surrounding area of Gotham City Bank will likely constitute the use of a weapon of mass destruction. 18 U.S.C. § 2113 is the federal statute that criminalizes bank robberies. By the time Batman arrives, Scarecrow and Mad Hatter are already in the process of carrying away sacks of cash after blowing their way into the bank. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2113, anyone who, by force and violence, takes money from the possession of a bank will be guilty of bank robbery. Considering the trail of bodies left behind by the villainous duo, it would be easy to prosecute them for the crime. Despite their best efforts, Batman’s timely arrival will ensure that the two spend the night of Independence Day behind the bars of Arkham Asylum without the freedom to cause mayhem throughout the city.

The Roman’s Birthday

Carmine Falcone’s wish finally comes true on his birthday. Sal Maroni turns himself to Gotham PD and agrees to testify against Falcone after Maroni’s own father is gunned down. In one of the most iconic scenes in the Batman mythos, Maroni begins to cough and complain of an ulcer while he is on the stand being questioned by Dent. Dent, impatient to get Maroni’s testimony, approaches Maroni while Maroni is caught in a coughing fit. As Dent leans in to reiterate his question to Maroni, Maroni grabs a vial of acid and splashes it across Dent’s face. Maroni’s actions could be prosecuted under a number of legal theories. While Maroni’s lawyer may argue that Maroni’s actions were just an assault with a deadly weapon, the District Attorney’s office would likely pursue attempted murder, since Dent survives the ordeal. In California, codified as 16 California Penal Code § 664, attempted murder requires that a person take a “direct but ineffectual act” toward killing another person and that the attacker have the intent to unlawfully kill that other person. Maroni takes multiple steps including the procuring of the acid and the actual act of splashing the acid on Dent’s face. Maroni’s lawyer may argue that there was no intent to kill Dent, but Maroni’s own words suggest otherwise. After Maroni throws the acid he yells: “You’re dead, Dent! That stuff’ll eat through cement!” Maroni’s outburst shows that he intended to kill Dent with the acid. Maroni could also be convicted under 8 California Penal Code § 203, a law that criminalizes “mayhem.” Mayhem is defined as the unlawful and malicious deprivation, disabling, or disfigurement of a human being’s body part. Mayhem can also include putting out an eye or slitting a nose, ear or lip. Maroni’s horribly disfiguring attack on Dent would easily qualify Maroni to be prosecuted under this statute.

Labor Day

While Maroni is being transferred from his prison cell, it is revealed that Carmine Falcone’s son, Alberto is still alive and faked his own death. Alberto then confesses to being the “Holiday” killer. While faking your own death, or pseudocide, is not a crime on its own, faking your own death usually involves a number of fraud-related crimes.

Halloween

One year after the first crime is committed, the identity of the “Holiday” killer is finally revealed. With Alberto behind bars, the real “Holiday” killer is able to trick the police and ultimately evades arrest. The last panels of the story depict the “Holiday” killer burning the costume they used to commit the various holiday related murders. The “Holiday” killer’s actions allow us to revisit 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The “Holiday” killer is knowingly destroying tangible evidence in order to ensure that the police never discover their identity. This is a clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 as the “Holiday” killer is attempting to destroy evidence. Just as Falcone’s cash goes up in flames during the last Halloween, all evidence of the “Holiday” killer’s identity is reduced to a pile of ash.

Holy Courtroom Conundrums Batman

0

During the average night for the Caped Crusader, when he’s not fighting super villains, stopping world ending crises, or hanging out with a starfish in a jar, he spends his time stopping crimes around Gotham City. In almost all of the iterations of Batman, we see him working alone or with the GCPD to stop various muggings, robberies, and terrorist acts by (relatively) normal citizens. But after the Bat ropes them to a lamp post and Commissioner Gordon arrests them, what happens then? Assuming that the Gotham legal system works similarly to our legal system (and there is ample evidence that it does), then the next step after the arrest would be the criminal charge brought by the District Attorney, then the Defense investigation, then the plea bargaining or trial. But where does Batman fit into all that legal stuff?

Can Batman be called as a witness?

Sure, why not? In order to prove their case the DA will likely have to call Batman as a witness to testify that the Defendant was indeed robbing the store, snatching the purse, or what have you. Since all the cops usually see is a suspect tied to a tree, connecting that guy to the crime can get a bit sticky without the testimony of the Caped Crusader to fill in the blanks. Take the trial of King Tut/Professor McElroy from Batman vs. Two Face for example. (As an aside, there is so much wrong with this trial scene it almost deserves its own post to go over, but we’ll stick to Batman’s part here.)

At the trial Assistant District Attorney Harvey Dent calls Batman to testify about how he solved the caper of the stolen biplane and to help prove that Professor McElroy is responsible for the crimes of his alter ego King Tut (since they are your classic Hollywood split personality). Batman takes the witness stand in full costume to testify and, although he tries to help explain that the Professor personality has no idea what the Tut personality is doing, Harvey twists his words and the Jury convicts poor Professor McElroy. All everyday run of the mill stuff for the Gotham City Courtroom I’m sure.

However, Harvey has made the classic prosecutor blunder and forgotten about the US Constitution. Cue Robin: “Golly Batman of course (punches his palm), it’s the Sixth Amendment1 which guarantees (among other things) the right to face all the witnesses against you.” This means more than just getting the opportunity to see the person for the first time on the witness stand. Combined with the Prosecution’s burden of disclosure it means the Defense has a right to know all the witnesses that the Government will call and to see all the evidence that the Government will offer in advance of trial so that they can properly prepare to cross examine those witnesses. The Prosecutor isn’t allowed any surprises. (There’s a really good scene in My Cousin Vinny that covers this surprisingly accurately. If you haven’t seen it go watch it, it’s a fantastic legal movie.)

So, before trial Harvey Dent would have had to disclose his witness list to Professor McElroy’s attorney, including that he would call Batman. However, since Batman isn’t a real person, Dent would need to turn over Batman’s real name, which runs into an issue. Harvey doesn’t know Batman’s real name. Luckily for all of us, the Constitution doesn’t care. Since McElroy has a right to face his accuser and since he has a right to be able to put on a defense, he has a right to Batman’s true identity if Batman is going to testify and if Bats wants on the stand he’s got to do it without the mask, placing him in a Courtroom Conundrum. Think about it this way, what qualifies Batman to talk about split personalities to begin with? Does he have a doctorate? From where? Has he performed research in the field prior to positing that if you pummel King Tut on the head he switches personalities? These are all questions that the Defense gets to investigate so they can question the veracity of Batman’s conclusions (seriously, go watch My Cousin Vinny). The defense also gets to dig into Batman’s history for anything that gives him a bias in the case or any ways to impeach his testimony. So, if Batman wants to testify he’s got to do it as Billionaire Bruce Wayne. Funny to think of how much money Joker and the dastardly fiends of Gotham’s underground were going to pay Two-Face when all they needed was one moderately competent public defender. Makes you think.

So, how does the GCPD rely on Batman to do their job for them… I mean… help them do their job? In theory, the Bat could be a confidential reliable informant (or CRI). For a long time police have relied on informants to provide tips or to help them investigate crimes. One very common example of how police use CRIs is what’s called a controlled drug buy. It goes something like this: the CRI tells the officer that s/he knows about a drug dealer and can buy drugs from them. The police set the CRI up with a set amount of money, search them to make sure they don’t have any illicit substances, and send them off to the drug dealer’s place to make a purchase. The officers watch the CRI as much as possible to make sure that they limit as many variables as they can, and once the CRI gets back the police search them again, take the drugs and use the CRI’s information to get a warrant from a judge for a search of the drug dealer. Now, if the police can’t actually observe the drug transaction itself then they’re relying on circumstantial evidence and the statements of the CRI to make their case.

As you might imagine, this comes with some problems for all parties. Without editorializing (at least trying really hard no to editorialize): for the Government, they want to protect their CRI from reprisals should their identity be made known and perhaps disguise or minimize the potential problems with their source, and for the Defendant dealing with information from a source you don’t get to know can cause all kinds of issues, including those described above like base of knowledge and reputation. Courts have tried to balance these two competing interests and have largely allowed the use of CRIs with few restrictions[1] (ok, I editorialized a little there). Among the requirements are that the Government must inform the defense of a CRI’s basis of knowledge (i.e. how do they know what they say they know) and information on their reliability (i.e. do we know anything like that they have prior convictions, are they providing information in exchange for some consideration, have they provided reliable information in the past, etc.). However, Courts have made it extremely difficult for the Defendant to compel the Government to turn over the actual identity of the CRI.

There’s nothing in real life that quite matches up with Batman, but doing our best to apply the rules associated with CRIs to the Caped Crusader it doesn’t look good. The requirements that the Government provide some basic information to Defendants means that the police officers need to know whether Batman has any prior convictions or other information which might reflect on his credibility (which while the Batman of ’66 probably doesn’t, other versions of Bruce/Batman have a bit rougher history and relationship with law enforcement and might have convictions or at least warrants) and to disclose the basis of Batman’s knowledge, which is typically a bit more complicated than I knocked on someone’s door and asked them to sell me drugs, and is often not something the police themselves understand. To boil it down, in order to run a CRI the officer has to know who that person is. There’s a very fine line between allowing the police to keep a source a secret and the police using an unknown vigilante (yes, I know the ’66 Batman was once deputized but let’s overlook that for now) to do their work for them. Imagine a Judge ordering the District Attorney to disclose their source and the DA says “It’s Batman your honor”, it wouldn’t work out well there would probably be some laughter in the Courtroom. Of course, the DA always has the option to dismiss the case rather than disclose the name of the CRI but that’s just embarrassing (I editorialized a little there too).

The other issue with the GCPD using batman as a CRI is that it makes him a state-actor, subject to all the constitutional limits that brings with it. Imagine if people could sue Batman for unreasonable force, or if Batman had to take time out of an investigation to get a warrant before he searches the Joker’s hideout: that’s how you lose a Robin (sorry, is that too soon?). Batman is able to do what he does because he can operate outside of the law and in a lot of ways Batman exists to do just that, act outside the normal rules and do things the police can’t. While that makes for good comic books, it doesn’t work well in real life.

1 The Sixth Amendment reads “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

[1] In Oregon we have these rules written into a statute, ORS 133.545 (6): … If an affidavit is based in whole or in part on hearsay, the affiant shall set forth facts bearing on any unnamed informant’s reliability and shall disclose, as far as possible, the means by which the information was obtained.

What Happens to Mr. Freeze’s Money in Batman Beyond?

0

In the not too distant future, Bruce Wayne has given up the cape and cowl and gone into isolation. His company is taken over by corporate industrialists and Gotham City has changed into a cyber aged city complete with flying cars and still wracked with crime. With no Batman to fear and cower from gangs like the Jokers run rampant over the lower, less affluent levels of Gotham and teenager Terry McGinnis tries to get through life with a split family and all the usual high school problems. When his dad is murdered because of something he learns at his job for Wayne Powers Terry seeks out the reclusive Bruce Wayne for help from Batman and ends up taking up the mantle of the Caped Crusader (though without the Cape). After starting out by turning the CEO of Wayne/Powers, Derek Powers into a radioactive supervillain (as opposed to a corporate shark regular villain), fighting an assassin made of ink, and going up against a bullied teen who gains control of a giant construction robot, Terry meets his first of the old Batman’s rogues’ gallery.

Season 1 Episode 5 finds Batman up against a resurrected Mr. Freeze. After his last fight with Bruce’s Batman in Batman and Mr. Freeze: Sub Zero he’s still alive, or at least his head is. Powers/Blight is trying to cure himself of his radiation poisoning so he is looking into cloning himself a new body. Dr. Stephanie Lake, lead scientist on the project, suggests they test it on Mr. Freeze since his genetic condition is similar to Blight’s. In his new clone body Mr. Freeze sets out to redeem his past misdeeds by starting the Norah Freeze foundation in memory of his late wife. He does this with money that he says was from his “legitimate holdings” and put in a blind trust before he went to prison. But would he have had any money that could have been put away before he went to prison, or would the government have seized it upon his conviction using the Criminal Forfeiture Laws?

The answer turns out to be complicated. At its base the Criminal Forfeiture law is designed to make sure that people don’t profit from criminal activity (Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2). If you rob a bank and they convict you of robbing a bank you obviously don’t get to keep the money you stole. You also don’t get to keep the Ferrari you bought with the money you stole from the bank. That all makes sense and seems fair, however on the ground though things are rarely that clear cut and criminal forfeiture has drawn significant criticism. I won’t go into too much detail, but google ‘Criminal Forfeiture Controversy’ and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Suffice to say, it’s frequently used to seize legitimate assets of people who are on the low end of criminal activity. For a real world example (though with some details tweaked for the sake of privacy), a person is drawing a pension from being disabled and is dabbling with the low end of the drug trade. They are caught, arrested, and convicted but keep no transaction records. How do you sort out what money was from the disability and what was from the drug trade. Was used from one for the other? You get the idea. Unfortunately, with the all consuming grind of the justice system and the drive of judicial efficiency, the system is not always prepared to look into the little details and will routinely seize what prosecutors ask for without much scrutiny.

Now let’s look at Mr. Freeze’s situation, which is likely not as complicated as the last example. It would have probably looked something like this: Mr. Freeze gets charged with his various acts of villainy, goes to trial or pleads guilty and the Government has to show, or Freeze has to admit, that whatever they want to seize is proceeds of his criminal activity. If they don’t agree, then there is a seperate trial where the Government would need to show by a preponderance of the evidence (51% more likely than not, as opposed to the guilt phase of a trial where they have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt) that whatever money they seek to seize is the fruit of his criminal exploits (which they’ve already shown at the guilt phase of the proceedings that happen prior to the forfeiture proceedings). While it’s possible that the Government would have agreed that some of Freeze’s money was legitimate and unrelated to his criminal activity it seems unlikely for two reasons. First, Governments are always happy to take money, second (and more important/less snarky) Freeze doesn’t have any legitimate holdings. If you look back at Dr. Victor Freeze’s first appearance in Batman TAS (Season 1 episode 3, Heart of Ice for those keeping score) we see that Dr. Freeze was broke and embezzling from Gothcorp to fund his research on cryogenics, so he can save his wife’s life. This is what leads to him being fired by his boss (voiced by Mark Hamill oddly enough but I’ll leave the theories that Joker created Mr. Freeze to you) and flung into the cryogenic sciency stuff where he becomes Mr. Freeze (apparently becoming a supervillain gets your doctorate revoked).

So, if Mr. Freeze doesn’t have any legitimate holdings, what if he put one over on the prosecutors in his original case(s), what happens then? The short answer is that it’s so complicated the prosecutors in Neo-Gothem would be wise to just let him donate the money and start the charity with an agreement that he has no direct control over the charity’s operations. If, however, the Neo-Gotham Prosecutor’s Office want to do something about Freeze’s money, if they want to wade into that quagmire, what can they do? They can’t do a ton with the criminal forfeiture statutes because under that law any action that the Government takes has to be taken at the time of the sentencing and since we’re several decades too late for that they are out of luck with that particular statutory scheme. However, they have two more tools that they can look into. One is civil forfeiture which the government can use to start the case City of Gotham City vs. Money that Mr. Freeze Stole, where the money itself is a defendant and if Mr. Freeze wants to do something about it he has to ask the Court to let him intervene. That would let the prosecutors attempt to take control over the funds by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the money was connected to criminal activity. That might be a somewhat difficult case for them to make based on what records existed from the time the trust was created back in the TAS era, but their burden is still only more likely than not so it’s possible. The Government’s other option is to try to seize under a new criminal case on the theory that Mr. Freeze has been actively engaged in a criminal cover up to conceal the proceeds of his criminal activity, more commonly known as fraud. They could dig into his tax returns and see if there’s anything there, but since he’s a head in a jar living off the grid who knows what lies down that road. Bottom line though, if the Government wants your money and you’re a criminal, it is very likely that they get your money. Take what lessons you will from that. 

Should Batman have taken the rap for Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight?

0

Should Batman have taken the rap for Harvey Dent?

In The Dark Knight we find our brooding hero face to face (no pun intended) with the Joker, who has decided that he’ll stand for chaos where the Bat stands for order. The Joker rains chaos on the city with explosions and car chases and various murders, so Batman teams up with Bruce Wayne’s friend and newly elected District Attorney Harvey Dent to stop him. Eventually, Joker kidnaps Dent and his girlfriend Rachel (who Bruce/Batman is/are also in love with) and hides them in two buildings across town from each other, both wired to explode. The Clown Prince of Crime gives Batman the choice of who to save, Harvey or Rachel. Batman (who in the Christopher Nolan trilogy is really not the world’s greatest detective) tries to save Rachel, only to realize that the Joker has executed a dastardly trick on him and lied to him about which prisoner is where so Batman ends up being slightly too late to totally save Dent whose face is scared in the explosion and Rachel dies. Bruce becomes mopey and Harvey goes crazy as a result. Dent, now Two-Face, goes on a murder spree and kills a couple of mobsters and kidnaps Commissioner Gordon’s family before being brought down by Batman and Gordon. Batman then laments that by turning Dent into Two-Face he won because if the city ever finds out that Dent was a murderer the hope he inspired will be lost and the criminal he put away as DA will be released. So Batman decides that he’ll take the blame for Two-Face’s murders and have Gordon declare him an outlaw. When faced with the facts of the movie and the law (pun intended that time), does Bat’s decision make sense?

In true lawyer fashion the answer is, it depends. It depends largely on what Batman’s goal was be for taking the blame for Two-Face’s murders. If his aim is to help his friend Harvey Dent avoid a messy public downfall then it might make sense for Batman to publicly take the blame, or at least try to. That way he can be the fall guy for Harvey and hopefully keep him from most of the consequences he might face if he’s ever cured of his Two-Face persona (though that cure never does seem to stick): like disbarment, losing his office, and going to prison. Having Batman as a scapegoat might help frame the public narrative in Harvey’s favor. This really only makes sense if Harvey died at the end of the movie, which is unclear. If Dent is alive then they’re going to have to come up with some very convincing reason why he’s no longer DA (because I’ve seen some bad DA’s in my career but that’s jumping the shark without your Bat-Shark-Repellent). The other major problem with Batman and Gordon crafting this narrative is that they ultimately have to contend with the public understanding of Batman that already exists. At this point Batman is already well known enough that he has copycats and is largely accepted as a figure for good in the public eye and one that doesn’t kill. So there’s a better than even chance that the people of Gotham won’t accept that Batman has suddenly become a murderer. Though even if they don’t accept it, it does still call suspicion off Harvey.

If Batman’s aim is to protect his friend Harvey from any kind of legal consequences then Batman taking the blame for the murders may really work out for him. Dent was a beloved figure in the police department and justice system. He was a crusader of a DA who championed the police department in the Courtroom and he ran for District Attorney with the slogan Take Back Gotham (the subtext being from the mobs that have overrun it).

Batman is right when he describes Dent as someone that the city’s law enforcement need as a light against the corruption that had threatened to overwhelm it. Having Batman as a scapegoat would likely provide all the political and legal cover that the Gotham PD and DA’s office need to never bring charges against Dent. As an aside, it is unlikely that the Gotham City District Attorney’s Office would be involved with this case. To avoid the appearance of (or actual) bias, an outside DA’s office would be the ones to actually prosecute Dent if charges were ever brought. The same thing is done in the real world when a police department has to investigate one of its own officers. You can look at some of the high profile officer shootings that have been in the news lately for how this plays out. Suffice to say, if Batman and more importantly Gordon decide this is the way to go then it will probably work. Gordon would be the one writing the official report and if there’s nothing in that report to implicate Dent, then the Gotham DA’s office could stay on the case. This would not be a difficult cover-up, all things considered. That is, unless Dent lived. If Harvey/Two-Face is still alive they’re going to have to figure out how to deal with that. Even Gordon and Batman would have to admit that he shouldn’t be DA anymore and that’s going to lead to some questions that may best be addressed in their own post. 

But the ultimate question that stands out at the end of the movie is should Batman have taken the fall for Two-Face? I say no, he shouldn’t have.

We have to look back at the origin movie for this iteration of Batman and consider why Bruce Wayne put on the cape and cowl in the first place. In Batman Begins we see Rachel throw Bruce’s rich kid pain in his face by introducing him to the corruption in Gotham via a nightclub and a mobster named Falcone. Falcone has been buying up judges, the DA, and cops so he can run the city’s drug trade without fear of the law. Young Bruce confronts him but realizes he can’t win the fight in the open so he becomes the Batman in order to fight criminals that the Justice System, because of its internal corruption, couldn’t touch. So we know that from his beginning Batman has been trying to clean up Gotham’s justice system and to make sure that outside influences didn’t have a place in how justice was done.

Harvey Dent as Two-Face killed at least 3 people that we see in the movie then he kidnaps Gordon’s family and threatens to kill them. He has broken the law. He may have defenses to his crimes, lack of capacity due to mental illness for example, but that should be up to the justice system. By taking the blame for him, Batman becomes what he set out to stop. In his own way, he’s as bad as Falcone. He may not be paying bribes, but he does use his position and friendship with Gordon to help his other friend Dent get away with murder (literally). He’s taken the system into his own hands to protect his friend and confidant. Yes, he does it because he thinks it will help the system, but Batman is not known for making exceptions in his war on crime.

Batman is traditionally seen as having a single minded devotion to justice and being willing to sacrifice almost anything to see justice done (including his health, sanity, and occasionally a kid sidekick, poor Jason). In every other iteration of Batman he has committed Harvey to the justice system to get help, in Arkham usually, though there’s a legitimate debate over whether anyone can find help in Arkham. Point is, Nolan’s Batman sets out to clean up the system, to make sure that money and power can’t protect people who break the law. Harvey Dent breaks the law and Batman, because of Dent’s power and influence, uses his own power to make sure Dent never faces justice. It doesn’t match up with the character of Batman as a whole and more annoyingly it’s internally inconsistent with this Batman in particular.

So, all things considered the answer to the question is no, Batman should never have taken the rap for Harvey Dent/Two-Face’s murders. It likely doesn’t help Dent in the long run and it really isn’t in keeping with the character of Batman that we’ve come to know over the last 80 years or with this Batman that we’d gotten to know over two movies. Batman is champion of justice, in the DC cannon he may be even more a champion of the justice system than any other character. For him to decide that the system shouldn’t prosecute Dent is totally out of character for Bats. I guess the Joker won this one after all.  

Lawyers Go Batty Over the World’s Greatest Detective from Gotham

0

We had a Bat-tastic time at WonderCon 2019 with our panel honoring the 80th Anniversary of Batman. A big thank you to Matt Weinhold from MonsterParty for moderating the panel, and our great attorney presenters Steve Chu, Courtney McNulty, and Jordon Huppert. Check out the video, podcast, and photos below.

Special thank you to Autumn Ericson for serving as our photographer.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Two-Face Civil Rights Mock Trial at San Diego Comic Fest 2019

0

We returned to San Diego Comic Fest for a mock trial inspired by Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on a Serious Earth, where Two-Face had sought a preliminary injunction to keep his doctors from taking his silver dollar away as “treatment.” The case was argued by Ezekiel Bottorff and Mackenzie Parker from Golden Gate University for the Plaintiff and Claudia Salinas, Ching-Yun Li, both from California Western School of Law, and Zachary Sterling, from the University of Kentucky, for the Defendants. Job well done in bringing this mock trial to life.

Special thanks to US Magistrate Judge Mitch Dembin for presiding over the hearing, Dr. Janina Scarlet and Dr. Asher Johnson for serving as expert witnesses, and Kathy Steinman and Stephen Tollsfield for assisting as coaches for the teams.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Check out the audio from the mock trial, available on our podcast channels.

Call for Law Students for Batman Themed Mock Trial at San Diego Comic Fest!

0

The Batman first appeared when Detective Comics # 27 hit the newsstands in March 1939. To celebrate the last 80 years of adventures, we are organizing a mock trial inspired by Grant Morrison’s 1989 Graphic Novel Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth. 

We are seeking four to six law students to join us at San Diego Comic Fest, held on March 7 to 10, 2019, at the Four Points by Sheraton on Aero Drive in San Diego. The mock trial will be on March 9, 2019.  

Here are the Facts for the Mock Trial: Harvey Dent had his silver dollar taken away as part of his treatment at Arkham Asylum. Psychotherapist Ruth Adams claimed Dent was being “cured” of his obsession with duality. Dent’s treatment was replacing his coin with a six-sided die and then Tarot cards. Dr. Adams next stage of treatment was to introduce Dent to I-Ching. Dr. Adams believed Dent would have a completely functional judgment facility that did not result in black and white absolutes.

Result of Treatment: Dent was unable to make basic decisions, such as when to go to the bathroom. The treatment left Dent hollow and sitting under a table the day the inmates took over asylum.  

The Lawsuit: Attorneys retained by the Wayne Foundation have brought suit against Arkham Asylum, the late Arkham Administrator Charles Cavendish, Dr.Ruth Adams, and DOES 1-50, claiming that Harvey Dent’s treatment violated the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Attorneys for the state have brought a summary judgment motion on the grounds that Dent’s coin was not taken away as a form of punishment, but a form of treatment.

Attorneys retained by the Wayne Foundation on Dent’s behalf have brought suit against Arkham Asylum, the late Arkham Administrator Charles Cavendish, Dr.Ruth Adams, and DOES 1-50, claiming that Dent’s treatment violated the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Attorneys for the state will argue that Dent’s coin was not taken away as a form of punishment, but a form of treatment.

The two teams of law students will represent Plaintiff Harvey Dent and Defendant Arkham Asylum, et al. The law students will get to prepare their case with advice from practicing attorneys, prepare psychologists for witness examination, and argue their case before a Federal Judge.