Review of Daredevil Born Again episode "The Hollow of His Hand"

Daredevil Born Again episode 3 is a trial episode! Join us for our review of "The Hollow of His Hand," where we discuss whether Matt Murdock is a good lawyer, whether he had a duty to tell the court about the attempted murder by the corrupt detective, the admissibility of character evidence, if police reports could be admitted without witnesses, and the charges against the White Tiger. 

Support the show

No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks

Episode Transcript

Joshua Gilliland (00:02):
Hello, my name is Joshua Dillowand, one of the
founding attorneys of the LegalGeeks With me to discuss
Daredevil Born Again, episode 3,is retired.
Judge Matthew Sherino, gabbyMartin and Chris Butler All of
us have practiced law and we arehere to talk about a trial

(00:23):
episode of Daredevil Going inthe order I just described, for
sake of not everyone talking atonce.
Judge Cherino, how are youtonight?
I am very well thank you.
Excellent, Gabby.
How are you?

Gabby Martin (00:38):
I'm doing excellent.
I am loving Daredevil BornAgain.
So far it's been fantastic.

Joshua Gilliland (00:47):
And Chris, how are you and what do you think?

Kris Butler (00:49):
I'm doing a lot better than spoiler warning
White Tiger at the end of theepisode.

Joshua Gilliland (00:56):
Doing a lot better than that.
Spoilers.
We're going to be talking lotsabout this, so if you haven't
watched the episode yet, pleasego and watch the episode, then
come back.
You can listen to our voicesthen.
So this is a trial episode.
We have courtroom scenes and atrial that happens, I think,
fairly quickly after the arrest.

(01:18):
So the right to a speedy trialis put to good measure here.
Your Honor, did that seemrealistic to you?
I mean, superheroes aside.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (01:31):
It certainly fits within Daredevil
in that the trials do come aboutreally, really fast after
arraignment it's generallywithin days.
That certainly does not happenin real life.
A capital case, a murder case,a case involving a police
officer probably would not go totrial for about a year after

(01:51):
arraignment, just as a generalguess.

Joshua Gilliland (01:55):
Well, you know they have that super fast time
travel and things.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (02:00):
As a defense attorney, you probably
want to get some discoverybefore you actually go to trial.

Joshua Gilliland (02:06):
As a defense attorney, you probably want to
get some discovery before youactually go to trial.
Yeah, a lot of us are oldfashioned that way, but not
every TV show has that.
So let's talk about the chargesthat White Tiger gets accused
and tried for.
And your honor you helpedoutline and tried for.

(02:27):
And your Honor you helpedoutline.
You know there are multiplecharges here and somebody on
TikTok asked like hey, can youhave multiple charges?
And the answer is yes.
So why first question why havemultiple charges?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (02:39):
You generally, if you're a
prosecutor, you're going tocharge any of the particular
crimes for which the elementsare met because, depending on
how the proof comes out in trialbefore the case is submitted to
the jury, some of the chargesmight be dropped.
Sometimes lesser includedoffenses, at the request of
defense counsel, might be addedinto the deliberations that the

(03:04):
jury is going to actuallyconsider.
But in case the proof at trialcomes out a little bit
differently and additionally,you might also prove various
crimes and for each of thecrimes for which someone is
convicted in, they can besentenced.
Now if the crimes themselvesare all out of one act, then

(03:26):
those sentences will be runningat the same time, what we call
concurrently.
If they're different acts, evenif the same course or scheme
but separate acts, then thejudge might sentence someone
consecutively, which meansthey're going to serve each of
those sentences one after theother and just as another.
Aside as a bit of trivia, Iguess, with regards to the trial

(03:49):
, that is an actual courtroom at100 Center Street.
I recognize some of the artworkthat was on the walls.
One of my friends actually sitsin that courtroom and it's a
really, really pretty courtroom.
The thing that annoys me isthat every time they show the
outside of that courthouse, theyare showing 60 Center Street,

(04:10):
which is the civil Supreme Courtin Manhattan.
It's a much, much prettieroutside, I get it, but all of
the trials take place forcriminal at 100 Center, which is
this really kind of Gotham-yart deco building.
I happen to think it's verybeautiful, but it doesn't like
fit into one shot.
So they always are using 60.

(04:31):
Law and Order does the exactsame thing.
They show the outside 60 Center, but the courtrooms are all at
100 Center.
Pet peeve of mine.

Joshua Gilliland (04:41):
Valid.
Well, so let's break down thecharges and uh, chris, if you
could help with this, that'd befantastic but uh, the defendants
charged with, starting fromlowest to highest, manslaughter
murder two murder one.
And can you help walk usthrough those different charges?

Kris Butler (05:02):
yeah.
So this is a little differentfrom my, my jurisdiction, where,
uh, you know, usually murder isthe the more uh, that's the one
you start off with andmanslaughter is usually the one
that's like, okay, maybe youdon't have all the elements, but
, uh, and I don't think ourmanslaughter has degrees, uh,

(05:22):
but in new york, uh,manslaughter in the first degree
is a person, uh, they're,they're trying to seriously
injure someone.
This is the first element, andthe second one is they're trying
to kill them.
Uh, so this is greater thanassault, which you know is
different in a criminal andcivil context.
Uh, so what they're trying toget here they're.

(05:43):
This is like sort of thenetting of how they're trying to
get, uh, hector ayala, you knowit's, they're not trying to get
away.
There are some cases where youthink it's clear that someone
killed someone, but maybe theprosecution overcharged or had
circumstantial evidence, uh,which I think was really the
case here.
There was a lot of evidence wedid not get introduced that we

(06:05):
thought I think the four of uswould think you would see in a
case, but they sped through thisthing like it was the Flash.
Different universe but sameresult.
We don't talk about Quicksilverin the MCU Murder in the second
degree.
Oh wait, something that'simportant is in New York.
Manslaughter in the firstdegree is a class B felony.

(06:26):
That's going to need someoneelse that's in New York to
explain the differences betweenthose, because we don't have
that here in the.
Great Lakes state.
Murder in the second degree isa person intending to cause a
death of another person causesthat death of that person or

(06:47):
another person.
And there are.
I'm trying to talk, I'm justgoing to read it the defendant
acted under the influence ofextreme emotional disturbance
for which there was a reasonableexplanation or excuse.
Pretty much you're trying tohave a reason out for why you
killed that person or why youractions led to that person's

(07:08):
death or the person beingcharged with a defendant.
Your conduct caused or youaided unless you were under
duress or deception, you causedthe person to commit suicide or
extreme recklessness, depravity,you did not care what happened
to that person.

(07:29):
Uh, this is considered a classa1 felony.
Man, y'all are complicated innew york, uh, and murder in the
first degree is a person isguilty when they intend to cause
the person.
Uh, you intend to murder, killthe person, uh, or it you ended
up killing someone else, um, andeither the intended victim was

(07:51):
a police officer, which was thecase here, um, and that's where
they get that charge and this isalso a class a1 felony yeah,
the degrees confuse me too,because we don't have all it's
different in california as well.

Joshua Gilliland (08:08):
So, uh, gabby, as as the other east coast, uh
uh, attorney, can you help usunderstand the degrees?
For those of us that well, ourlaws are just different yeah, no
, and it's.

Gabby Martin (08:21):
It's funny because you know I went to law school
in Connecticut, registeredpractice in Connecticut, and so
we have a friendly competitionwith our friends in the great
state of New York and it'sinteresting in going to law
school there.
You know we always talk aboutthe difference in the criminal

(08:43):
system, know we always talkabout the difference in the
criminal system and so I thinkwhat's interesting about you
know the state of New York,especially this kind of murder
in the first degree and I think,to kind of tie it to current
events, I think and Judge youcan correct me if I'm wrong on
this, but this came up with thetrial of Luigi Mangione, of the

(09:09):
escalation to get to a firstdegree murder charge.
That is specific to New Yorkand I think in New York this is
where you have to have that kindof elevated charge, as you guys
were mentioning on last week'sepisode.
That kind of elevated charge,as you guys were mentioning on
last week's episode, you know,murder in the first degree,
you're having the death of apolice officer, which is one of

(09:30):
the escalations here, the otherdegrees that we have.
Murder in the second degree youintend to cause the death of
another person and thenmanslaughter.
This is where you know it'sfunny I I remember the chart

(09:51):
from my criminal procedurecriminal law classes and
manslaughter is those chargeswhere you're you're talking
about.
You didn't necessarily youdon't have kind of that
malicious intent to killsomebody, right, but you do have
that intent, that criminalintent, malicious intent to
cause physical injury and thatdoes result in somebody's death.
So what he's being acquitted ofhere is the jury is basically

(10:16):
finding that he did not have anyform of intent to commit any
sort of either physical injuryor murder or cause the death of
another person.
I should say because it was, asthey found and we know from
seeing the whole thing happen,it was an accident.
So part of the I want tohighlight.

Joshua Gilliland (10:39):
California does have like murdering the
first and murdering the seconddegree but the like class A
felony, class B felony.
I don't see that as a civillitigator and your honor if you
could help us, because New Yorkcode sometimes feels like it
needs a decoder ring for thedifferent felony levels

(11:30):
no-transcript.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (11:35):
The best way to look at um these
three charges is in light ofwhat you stated before, why you
charge the multiple uh counts.
If the prosecutor proved to thejury that he killed him and he
knew he was a cop, murder in thefirst degree.
If the prosecution proved thathe intended to murder, murdered

(11:58):
him but he did not know at thetime that he put, threw him into
the train that he was a cop,that would have been murder in
the second degree, which iscommon law murder.
And then, lastly, if he provedthat he didn't intend to kill
him but he did intend to injurehim by putting him in front of
the train and that resulted inhis death, that would have been

(12:18):
the manslaughter and the juryacquitted him of all three
charges.
And the reason then that youhave the A1 felonies and the B
felonies and it goes C, d and Efelonies and then for
misdemeanors, there's A and Bmisdemeanors and basically it
has to do with the punishmentfor which you can then be

(12:38):
sentenced.
And to simplify things, for an Aviolent felony, which was both
murder in the second and murderin the first, you would face
life without possibility ofparole or a sentence of 20 to 25
years, depending on othercircumstances.
Your prior records, all ofthose things can escalate you

(13:01):
from one thing to another.
Whether you're a predicate, afirst time felony offender, a
second time felony offender InNew York, all of those take into
.
You have to take those intoaccount as a judge when you're
doing sentencing.
And for a B felony, which wouldhave been the manslaughter if
he was only convicted of that,the sentence could be from five
to 25 years, again depending onhis prior record and other

(13:23):
circumstances, again dependingon his prior record and other
circumstances.
So the class of the felonyreally comes into play with the
punishment after they'reconvicted.

Joshua Gilliland (13:34):
Thank you, that's very helpful for those
who wonder hey, a what?
So let's jump into somethingthat happened to us on social
media that Chris jumped on withis Matt Murdock a good lawyer,
which is going to be the introto evidence discussion that
we'll have?
And, chris, do you want to takethe first swing at this on

(13:58):
whether or not Murdock is a goodattorney?

Kris Butler (14:02):
So I know one of the sticking points that I've
been asked about and I know that, uh, I've seen circulated
online.
It is did matt break uhattorney client privilege when
he introduced the white tigermask, uh and the identity into
the case?
Um and I?

(14:24):
I can't say that he did um I,because we know that the judge
knows, we know that theprosecution knows, and while
hector admitted that he was thewhite tiger that was found
during the course of I can'tremember his investigator's name
uh, cherry cherry.

(14:46):
Okay, I wanted to say that, butI was like that's, that can't
be right.
Uh, cherry.
Uh found it in in in his home.
And what I also thought wasreally surprising, given that he
was a murder suspect, you wouldhave thought that would have
been taken by the police in thecourse of the investigation.
But you know, not, noteverybody, I mean everybody's
watched enough, like svu or ncisor csi to you know, throw that

(15:11):
in there.
But uh, yeah, at least when itcomes to me, I don't think
that's a violation ofattorney-client privilege.
Might be a little bitunderhanded lawyering after he
fought to keep it out, um, butit is character evidence, all
the things that he's trying toget uh the door he's trying to
open with the white tigeridentity and I I don't know if

(15:34):
it's improper.
I don't think it shows proper,uh, candor to the court.
Um, but you know some,sometimes, uh, I guess you need
a lawyer to do that.
When the hand is stackedagainst, you Can't say I condone
it, but I do understand it.

Joshua Gilliland (15:50):
I would venture to say because Cherry
was Murdoch's investigator, allof his work does fall under the
attorney-client privilegebecause he is operating that way
.
So a discussion that matt andcherry would have would be
privileged because he's the youknow investigator doing that

(16:11):
work.
Now cherry can testify to whathe's seeing and whether for them
to get evidence in, but I thinkthere's an argument that
cherry's investigation could beprotected.
Uh, honor, do you have athought on that?

Judge Matthew Sciarrin (16:28):
Everyone that's in the law office that's
a non-attorney the attorney isethically responsible for.
So with Cherry we have a coupleof issues.
We have one, the fact that he'spaying off a witness with drugs
.
I think that can raise someethical concerns and I think
here, in as much as it was foundby Cherry while he was in

(16:53):
Matt's employ and the whitetiger did not want this to be
disclosed, I think there aresome ethical issues with
disclosing that.
Now, granted it worked outbecause it, I believe, was the
only reason the white tiger wasacquitted.
So I don't think that theethical bodies would come down

(17:17):
very, very hard on thisparticular case case.
The judge was certainly nothappy and part of that is that
that judge kind of went out on,you know, out of the way to make
that ruling it was not, I'msure, a very popular ruling with

(17:38):
the prosecutor's office or thepolice department and as much as
he kind of put his head outthere to make that ruling and
then Matt Murdock did what hedid, I well understand when they
went back into chambers, whythat judge was not particularly
happy with the way that that wasdone.
So I think there are someethical issues.
I don't think that in the end,matt would get into a whole lot

(18:01):
of trouble with it, but I thinkthat it is something that some
ethical bodies might look into.

Joshua Gilliland (18:07):
Gabby, what are your thoughts?

Gabby Martin (18:12):
So I kind of, what we're talking about is, you
know, you can understand itright, you know, and as the
judge said, you know it didultimately work in his favor.
But I think what struck me, andand I was trying desperately to
find a case that would kind ofspeak to it is there's for me a

(18:32):
a difference of, you know, ifthis would say like a spider-man
reveal or you know any, youknow, kind of flash, obviously
we're crossing universes, butflash, or you know whatever.
Um, but there, obviously we'recrossing universes, but flash,
or you know whatever.
But there was something aboutthe way he described the white

(18:53):
tiger being connected to hiscultural heritage that kind of
sent up a red flag for me thatit might have.
You know, it seemed verysimilar to like Black Panther
and you know, just, it couldhave cultural, ethnic, religious
undertones and if, perhaps, byrevealing that there's something
almost, you know, protectedabout that, in a way that's not

(19:18):
just you know, oh, his identity,right, that there's something
deeper there to his connectionas the white tiger, you know
it's clearly connected to hiscultural heritage.
You know talking about theisland of Puerto Rico, and you
know there's an amulet, right.
And so my thought was again.

(19:40):
Yes, it's legal gray areawhether he can or can't reveal
it, right.
But I think there's somethingdeeper, that there's this kind
of religious cultural violation.
That happens as well.

Joshua Gilliland (19:55):
I have all kinds of problems with that and
from the duty of loyalty to theclient incurring the wrath of
the judge because there couldhave been other ways to have
brought this out.
Because the issue is theconfidential informant that the
police were going to murderchickened out on the stand

(20:17):
because the courtroom was fullof law enforcement staring at
him, people with Punishertattoos on the neck.
He's a little nervous, so Idon't know if there would have
been a way to recruit acourtroom of police officers so
he could have felt safe totestify, or if there's a way to

(20:39):
effectively impeach the victim.
And how do you do that?
And your Honor, if you have athought on, was there another
trial strategy that could haveworked here?
I would love your thoughts onthis.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (20:54):
It also seemed like someone came into
the courtroom they really didn'tshow who or what, at least
unless I missed it which kind oftriggered his change.
It was like the godfather orgodfather two, while Michael
Corleone was being targeted andthe informer was on the stand

(21:21):
and then all of of a suddenMichael was sitting next to the
brother of the witness and therewas that subtle message.
So I don't know who came intothe courtroom that might have
triggered that particular thing.
I think that you would haveasked the judge to send away the
jury.
If you were Matt Murdock, sendaway the witness and kind of

(21:44):
give your offer of proof as towhat you believe that this
witness was going to testify,because you had a good faith
basis in that, because you'vediscussed it with that witness
and something happened thatchanged his mind.
And then, without anyone in thecourtroom other than, of course
, the defendant and theprosecutor and Matt Murdock, you

(22:05):
could have put that witnessback on the stand and asked a
couple of questions to see if hewas being threatened.
And there is a procedure forthis where a person can be kind
of forced to testify againsttheir will, not necessarily what
they're going to say, testifyagainst their will not
necessarily what they're goingto say.

(22:25):
So if he was going to stick tohis story that he was home, you
know you might declare himhostile.
But clearly I think Mattrealized that he wasn't going to
get anywhere and that his bestcourse of action was to change
tactics.
But there is a mechanism for ifthis kind of thing and this
does unfortunately happen for ifthis kind of thing and this
does unfortunately happen ithappened in several gang murder

(22:45):
trials that I was involved inwhere witnesses who were
eyewitnesses to various thingsthe day before the testimony
they either disappeared, theymade themselves unavailable.
There were times where we wouldhave to send out detectives to
arrest a witness and hold themin a hotel until it was ready

(23:10):
for them to testify.
You know there is proceduresfor all of this that still try
to keep a trial fair to thedefendant and for due process as
well, but there are proceduresfor dealing with it depending on
the actual events in question.

Joshua Gilliland (23:30):
Fascinating.
Why don't we get to what I loveand that's the rules of
evidence?
Because back in law school Ispent a lot of time alone.
But let's get into characterevidence, and there's a time you
can't offer it.
You can't offer it and when itcould be a very bad idea.
Uh, I know the judge and I areevidence nerds.

(23:53):
Gabby, how do you feel aboutother nerds and can you help us
understand character evidence?

Gabby Martin (24:00):
You're bringing up some like.
This was always my toughestsubject I had, so, but it's
interesting because I think whatyou see here is really and I'll
leave it to you guys to commenton the accuracy the 100%
accuracy, right, accuracy, the100% accuracy, right.

(24:21):
But it's it's really interestingbecause obviously Matt changes
tactics and, you know, revealingthe white tiger is to speak to
his character, right.
And so evidence of a person'scharacter is not admissible to
prove that the person acted inconformity with that particular

(24:42):
character on a particularoccasion, except in certain
circumstances, right.
So in a criminal proceeding, itcan be admissible where the
evidence of that character is anessential element of a crime
charge or claim.
So here you know, you couldargue that might be the case,
right, that he's part of hischaracter is that he goes around

(25:06):
, you know, getting intoaltercations with police
officers, right, that he hatespolice officers, that he, you
know, and it speaks to his, hisintent or lack thereof, to harm
these police officers, thesepolice officers.
A defendant may offer evidenceof character that is relevant to

(25:26):
prove the defendant acted inconformity if evidence on a
particular occasion and in acriminal proceeding, there's
some other evidence of characterin terms of defense,
justification or self-defense.

Joshua Gilliland (25:44):
Chris, would you like to add anything on
character relevance?

Kris Butler (25:51):
Yeah, especially in this context where, you know,
as Gabby said, matt is using thewhite tiger persona to
demonstrate, uh, that, uh, uh,you know, hector has this
propensity to help people outbecause, as he says, quote, it's
the right thing to do, unquote.
Um, you know, the prosecutionhas, uh, the ability to rebut

(26:17):
that introduction of characterevidence.
Now, they didn't show, theydidn't show a lot of the
prosecution's case on that.
So I would be curious, as,since the prosecution fought
hard to bring this evidence inthere and they obviously lost, I
wonder if they were going to gofor the angle of.

(26:37):
You know, this is not characterevidence of someone that is
helping for us the right thingto do.
It's someone that maybe justwants to get out there and fight
and he's not taking context ofthe uh situation in into account
or something to that effect.
Um, and what I also foundinteresting was and maybe they

(27:02):
didn't show this and maybe hewas alluding to this, but he
brought in all these policereports from all the different
officers and then we gotpossibly a cameo mention of
Officer Morales, quite possiblythe father of Miles Morales.
Miles Morales, but In myexperience and I think this is

(27:32):
sort of universal from what I'velooked into.
Police reports are inadmissiblehearsay.
You know there are layers tohearsay, but at least in this
context I feel like the policeofficers would more than likely
be available.
But he's using these ascharacter evidence that Hector
Ayala is a guy that helps outbecause it's the right thing to
do, and I don't think that wouldhave been allowed.

Joshua Gilliland (27:51):
Luckily we have a retired judge that can
help us with this, because Ihave your Honor.
What are your thoughts on theissues that Chris has raised?

Judge Matthew Sciarrin (28:00):
Absolute hearsay and absolutely
inadmissible at the trial.
And there's really no wayaround that issue.
They would have to have putthose officers on the stand and
asked them about those incidentsand his reputation and what
happened, because a reportcannot be cross-examined.
So even though, in addition toit being hearsay, you have a

(28:25):
Crawford issue where there is anissue where the prosecutor has
a right, or reverse Crawfordissue where the prosecutor has a
right to cross-examine thosewitnesses, so those reports
never would have been allowed inat any trial.
The dirty cop who did testify hetestified that him and his

(28:47):
partner were alone on the trainstation that night and it seemed
like the prosecutor's case and,as Chris said, there wasn't
much that was shown.
There's no way around.
I don't think the fact that thetheme and the motive that the
prosecutors seemed to be goingafter was that the defendant did

(29:08):
not like cops and that's thereason he took this cop and he
knew he was a cop and he threwhim in front of a train because
he did not like cops.
So, as a result, the characterevidence in and of itself would
have been relevant and wouldhave been allowed at trial, just
not through reports.
They would have to have putspider-man's dad on the stand

(29:32):
there's.

Joshua Gilliland (29:34):
We live in an age where there are cameras
every place.
The idea that you didn't tryacquiring security footage from
the subway seems very strange tome, because that could torpedo
the prosecution's case not notall of the new york subway

(29:56):
system stations have cameras.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (30:00):
It's it's in a high 80s to 90 percent
.
Some of them, some of them andyou know this is a clear example
of, I guess, maybe ethnicprivilege.
But the midtown stations werethe first ones to get the
cameras and then as we got tothe poorer neighborhoods they

(30:23):
were some of the last places toget the cameras.
And you would think that sincethat's where arguably at least
that's where people argue mostcrime takes place, that that's
where they would put a lot ofthe cameras.
But it did not work that wayand part of that was
infrastructure and that the morenewly renovated stations had
the infrastructure to put thecameras.

(30:44):
And also Staten Island and itslittle train system was one of
the last to get cameras and notall of those stations have
cameras yet.
So it is in the high 90s as faras, and most of the Manhattan
stations have, but some of thestations in the Bronx and in
upper New York did not havecameras yet.

Kris Butler (31:07):
I would.
I would also add they couldhave used that to torpedo the
confidential informantstestimony that he was home.
Oh, absolutely, because thenyou'd be like, ok, maybe you
didn't see him because thesubway system didn't have
cameras, but I'm sure one of thecorners outside the subway
station had a camera.
And then you could be like,well, is this not you?

(31:28):
Where were you going?
Where were you headed from?
Why were you in such a hurry?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (31:32):
and then you know permission to
treat the witnesses hostile andthen get that testimony in there
right and the and the otherthing that on that is is matt
murdo, I think, because heassumed that he was going to be
a good witness for him didn'tbother to get all of those
cameras from the local stores,the local streets, be able to

(31:58):
piece someone's progress throughthe city, or or from camera to
camera to camera to camera, uh,in order to show where they went
, from point a to point z.
And we saw that a lot.
But I don't think that you knowthat the police certainly
weren't going to be getting thatfootage because it didn't help
their uh crooked case, um, soand and matt, I don't think,

(32:21):
went after it.
I would have thought cherrywould have done a little bit
more due diligence on that, uh,but but apparently, because I
guess the trial happened in likethree days, they didn't have
the time to get the, the, thefootage from all of the stores
to show that he wasn't home,that he was on his way to the
train station, et cetera.

Gabby Martin (32:38):
Yeah, I mean they that that law firm has a lot of
staff that could have found allthe video evidence they needed
for a firm that's been inexistence for one year.
That's my sticking point.

Joshua Gilliland (32:51):
They have a lot of staff that could have
helped with this case you couldalso get the cell phone
information to show where the uhwitnesses cell phone was
pinging.
Because if it was like, oh,okay, you're gonna say you were
home, you know you're on arecess and you get the you know
cell phone data and impeach himuh to show like you this is it

(33:15):
shows this in the train stationthe one issue on that is if a
prosecutor is getting that cellphone data, he's going to get it
very, very fast.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (33:26):
If you're a defense attorney trying
to get that cell phone data,it's going to take a very, very
long time and you're going tohave to go through a lot of
hoops to get that particularcell phone data, and it's not
fair.
But that is reality reality,yes.

Joshua Gilliland (33:47):
And again, the three-day trial is kind of a uh
hang up here because you thinkthey would have had more time to
do more due diligence, becauseeven if they had a month like
there's a lot of this stuffmight still take 30 days for it
to arrive.
So, uh, frustrating, but therewould have been ways to impeach
the victim, which I know issounds horrible.
But if he's playing, I don'twant to have my wife and kids

(34:07):
end up dead too fine, uh, buthe's still not off the hook.
That just because he survivedbeing on the stand, that doesn't
mean he gets to live.
So so, again, ending upGodfather 2 comes to mind.
But let's talk about otherelements of this case with you

(34:32):
know, somebody's brought upbribing the witness with drugs.
I think that was you know thecomment about, like I can't have
you drooling on the stand.
I don't know if that's a bribeas opposed to well medicating
the guy, which doesn't make itright.
But the question about can yougive your best testimony today?

(34:53):
If he's drooling, no.
If he's high, also no.
Your Honor, you came off mutepretty quick.
So your thoughts also know,your Honor, you came off mute
pretty quick.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (35:04):
Yeah, I have problems with someone from
your law office giving anillegal substance to a witness,
so I really don't see that asbeing something that should be
done.
You know clearly he wanted himat at baseline and to get him at
baseline.
He's a drug addict.

(35:24):
The easiest way to do is to isto give him his drug of choice,
but there are substitutes thatthat are not.
As illegal as what appeared tohave been given to him.

Kris Butler (35:38):
But yes.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (35:39):
I have ethical issues because he is a
member of his law office and youknow all of those he is.
Ultimately, matt Murdock isultimately in charge of the
ethics of that office and givingan illegal substance I don't
believe can be found to in anyway be kosher under New York's

(36:00):
rules of character and fitness.

Joshua Gilliland (36:04):
So they lose their main witness and Matt,
after a recess which has time togo home and strategize in the
war room, decides tocross-examine his own client and
say are you not the white tiger?
I have problems with this andI'm going to be curious to hear

(36:30):
what the others say.
But my reaction to that is hedidn't talk to the client before
having this giant change instrategy.
There was time to actually goback to the office, so this
means that there was no time totalk with the client prior to
putting him on the stand, notime to pass a note prior to
putting them on the stand.

(36:51):
Ambushing one's own clientseems problematic.
Now there's the other issue ofclient competencies.
I'm still not convinced Hector'sidentity as the white tiger was
public information because, aswe see in the trial, it's not.

(37:11):
I still don't know if the DAdidn't know about it until Matt
brought it up, because I don'tthink the police did a good job
searching that apartment if theapartment had been searched at
all, because, again, it's in abox under the bed.
How lazy were they that theyeither didn't look or, if they

(37:33):
did look, they left it Likethat's not screaming thorough
with that investigation.
Screaming thorough, uh withthat investigation but I it
feels like he disclosed attorneyclient confidences.
Uh investigation that had not.
Uh arguably was privileged andit's it's a, I think,

(37:54):
problematic and gabby.
What are your thoughts?

Gabby Martin (37:57):
yeah, like I said, as soon as it happened, you
feel a certain way at least Idid because, again, going back
to it's not just kind ofrevealing his identity, but
there is this kind of culturalcomponent that seemed almost
like outing and it just rubbedme the wrong way, um, and it

(38:38):
just rubbed me the wrong way, um, and obviously when he's
speaking to him in the cell, youknow it's almost like he's, you
know, doing something on hisown behalf for his client, right
, he says, you know you'll bebetter off, like, not taking it
up again, right, ignoring thekind of cultural significance
and or, you know, religious, youknow ethnic, um kind of
significance to his particular,um, superhero identity or
vigilante identity, uh, versusmatt and and being daredevil, um

(38:59):
, I do think, going back to whatwe were talking about of, you
know, character evidence and allof that, there is a certain
strategy here which is gettingahead of something right,
introducing something before theprosecution has an opportunity
to introduce it, right, so thatyou kind of control the

(39:19):
narrative.
Right, so, if you know he hadwhich is kind of confusing
because obviously the motion toeliminate was granted and the
evidence was suppressed, right,but you know you could make an
argument that maybe he thoughtthat you know the prosecution
was going to try to attempt,like a gotcha, as he did, right.

(39:41):
And so there is that kind ofstrategy in trial to kind of get
ahead of the bad evidence,right, so that you control
what's being said.
That's one of the reasons forputting your client on the stand
, right.
And so, yeah, that is thestrategy.
But the reveal is, I agree withyou, not 100% ethical there.

Joshua Gilliland (40:06):
It's problematic because he's in, you
know, the lawyer's endangeringthe client's family as well,
which is part of the reasons whysuperheroes have secret
identities, so their loved onesdon't get taken out.
I remember reading the originalmarvel civil war, you know, and
there's an exchange between uhcaptain america, steve rogers,

(40:30):
and spider-man afterspider-man's reveal of uh.
You know how does mary janelike knowing that the green
goblin or the hobgoblin has herhome address?
Like you know, you're, you'reendangering others with that
conduct.
Uh, you know, again that mayget shot.
So problematic, uh, all around.

(40:50):
Uh, chris, did you want to addsomething?

Kris Butler (40:53):
yes, also, you almost triggered something by
bringing up aunt may gettingshot and then brand new day
happening to erase all that.
This made me stop readingmarvel comics for a decade
anyway.
Uh, a couple of things, um,that I thought interesting is
that matt murdoch got bit by thetony stark bug, and what I mean
by that is I feel guilty andself-righteous about something.

(41:15):
So I need to project this on toyou, hector, um, because he's
like I gave up Daredevil and Iam all the better for it, and
you will be too.
You know, sort of forcingHector into that corner, and I
feel like that's for Matt, butit's also a narrative tool for
us, because there's nothingkeeping Matt from.

(41:35):
You know, if he didn't want tosay it in the prison to, while
they're in the courthousewaiting for the judge to come in
, to be like, hey, I got a newstrategy.
And if he, if he doesn't evenwant to tell him straight up, he
just be like trust me or justsay, hey, we got to bring in
your identity or you're going todie.
You know that kind of thing, um, because you know, like you

(41:56):
both said, you know it puts hisfamily in danger.
It completely ignores the, theheritage um portion of what the
white tiger means to hector um,and I just thought that that was
a.
It was a wild move, it worked,but it only worked for what a

(42:16):
day, 12 hours, you know, afterhe got acqu acquitted.
And then the other thing wouldbe it's weird, I don't know as a
as a result of that, and I'mjumping ahead to the closing
argument of the prosecutionwhere he's saying you know, real

(42:36):
heroes don't hide behind masks.
It's a.
It's a kind of a wild thing tosay post-end game in the mcu.
Uh, you've already had thesokovia accords both.
You know you had everybodyfight for it.
They got passed, then they gotrepealed.
In a post-repealed sokoviaaccord world, it's wild to say
that heroes don't wear masksafter half the population gets

(43:02):
turned to dust and comes back.

Joshua Gilliland (43:03):
There have been two alien invasions.
Turns out there's an underseakingdom.
People might be a little on thefreaked outside and also
comfortable with the norms oflike, oh, aliens are real, yeah,
we know.
Now, like I, I'm still upsetabout, about the price of gas.
Like they could just not likeregister it might not be

(43:27):
important anymore.
Or they actually might see theperson as a hero because like oh
, you stopped the giant rhinoman from destroying my
neighborhood.
Thank you, your Honor, yourthoughts.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (43:40):
I don't think I could have said it any
better than chris, so I'm notgoing to add anything to what
chris has already said, exceptfor the fact that in this mcu
universe, if it follows the, thecomic book story that this is
kind of getting its informationfrom the da is appointed by the
mayor, as opposed to real life,where the da in new york is

(44:02):
elected um by by the citizens ofthe county.
So in as much as he's appointedby the mayor and he knows the
mayor's feelings againstvigilantes, that could be the
reason that he made thestatement about uh, the real,
the heroes don't wear masks andand public opinion could swing.

Joshua Gilliland (44:24):
But if this is also post-Break New World and
the president turned into a RedHulk, there might be a much
lower threshold for like yeah,okay, we call that Tuesday.
They just might not.
They're used to weird at thispoint.

Kris Butler (44:41):
There's a Red Hulk oh there's another evidentiary
uh that I want to bring up,which probably would have been
an expert witness.
But in the prosecution'sclosing argument he brings up
he's like do you know whathappens when you get hit by a
train?
You know, that is that is Imean.
Granted, it's closing argumentand the juries are instructed to

(45:04):
not listen to closing arguments, but having been a juror myself
, I can tell you that does nothappen.
But he brings up you know allthe things that happen to your
body when you get hit by a trainand how you're not dead and
everything like that.
He couldn't just say that offthe cuff, he would need an
expert witness to introduce that.

(45:24):
And then you know that bringsup the you know feeling of like.
This is how you know depraved.
He must have been to hit thatelement of uh I think that was
murder in the second degree hadto hit that element of like.
He did not care what happenedto this person's life, because
there's no getting around thisand the pain and terror that the

(45:44):
cop would have felt.

Joshua Gilliland (45:46):
It also raises the terrifying question how
often does that happen?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (45:51):
Because if you have that kind of
knowledge about train accidents,Unfortunately, people being
thrown out to the tracks in NewYork City does happen with quite
a bit of frequency.
And there would.
The medical examiner, in asmuch as this was a death case,
would have had to have testified.
So there would have been experttestimony to establish that the

(46:15):
victim was in fact dead andthere would have been testimony
as to the trauma that the body.
So, although a prosecutor isactually under a much higher
ethical duty in their closingarguments than a defense
attorney, there would have been,I think, that underlying

(46:37):
information for that prosecutorto make those statements that
they did, because there wouldhave been no way to prove a
murder case absent some of thatexpert testimony, at the very
least the medical examiner.

Joshua Gilliland (46:51):
Moving ahead.
So here's an issue thatreasonable minds can differ on,
but I'm of the mindset thatMurdoch should have told the
court that the star witnesspolice officer tried to have him
executed in the confidentialinformants apartment.

(47:11):
I think that's an importantfact the judge should know about
.
I think it's something the jurywould want to know about,
because if you're going to playthe dirty cop card, it shows the
intent of the police officer togo on a murder spree and after
especially after losing the starwitness, that would have been

(47:33):
helpful because it goes to theentire issue that these cops are
dirty and that they're outthere killing people.
Because they were, they had noqualms about executing a defense
attorney.
Reasonable minds can differ, uh, but I think that should have
been brought out and I thinkthere was a duty to the court to
do it.

(47:53):
I think there was a duty to theclient, uh, to do it as well,
uh, it does raise some stickyquestions about how did they
find a confidential informant?
But my two cents.

Gabby Martin (48:12):
Gabby, your thoughts, probably you know.
My guess and my feeling is thatMatt knows that Fisk is behind
this, right you know.
And and even it was tellingwhat the police commissioner

(48:33):
saying, like you're always goingto be the kingpin, right you
know that he doesn't know, kindof how deep this goes.
Right, because clearlysomething is weird.
If these guys just you know,concoct and it has the whole
storyline was kind of weird tome that they concocted this
story, that you know they wereon the, you know they were doing

(48:53):
police activity, right, andthis guy just came up and and
attacked him, which is clearlynot what happened.
Right, right, they wereroughing up a confidential
informant, but it just all seems.
Obviously we know, with thePunisher tattoos and at the end
of the episode seeingpotentially the Punisher back,

(49:21):
spoiler alert, but I think thatkind of was the reason for not
disclosing that.

Joshua Gilliland (49:28):
Your Honor, do you have thoughts on this?

Judge Matthew Sciarrin (49:56):
reported the police officer and whether
or not the defense of his clientput a duty to disclose it
because it would have helped hisclient's case.
I think one goes more to hisattorney's strategy in the
particular case.
So again, I don't think it wasa mandatory duty to report it
but it might have helped hiscase.
It's also very possible thejudge would have said that this
was a collateral issue outsideof the scope of this particular

(50:20):
trial and as much as the policeofficer had already testified.
So it could have raised acouple issues where he probably
wouldn't have been able topursue that line of inquiry,
raised a couple issues where heprobably wouldn't have been able
to pursue that line of inquiryanyway at that particular point.
I think once his witness kindof turned on him and if they had

(50:40):
explored that more and thereasons for his client changing
his story, that then might havebeen the time to raise that
particular issue.
But it doesn't seem that itever went that far for whatever
reasons and we didn'tparticularly see that.
So I don't think there was anabsolute duty.

(51:01):
You can certainly make the casethat he should have.

Joshua Gilliland (51:06):
Yeah, there's a difference between the ethical
duty to report wrong conductversus the duty to the client
for putting on the best casepossible.
And if the reason Matt didn'twant to do that was it could
have disclosed oh, I have aradar-like sense and I'm really
good at fighting.
That could also again.

(51:30):
Then the duty of loyalty isn'tto the client, it's, it's to the
lawyer's self-interest instead,in this case, not getting out
of his door.
Double chris.
Any any thoughts on that issue?

Kris Butler (51:42):
um, I I don't think I have anything to add about uh
, whether, whether there's aduty.
I think gabbyby and JudgeCherino covered that quite well.
But on the intimidation of awitness issue, I'd also throw in
harassment of counsel, giventhat the police officer that was

(52:04):
a star witness for theprosecution then pulled over the
investigator of the defense, um, and then you would have to
bring him on the stand and belike, well, why did you do that?
Why were you there?
You know that's, you know to me, I don't, I don't know where
his, you know uh precinctsboundaries are, but seemingly

(52:28):
that is.
It seemed like it was welloutside that.
But you bring that up and then,um, you can ask him questions
like have you seen uh, or haveyou been to the confidential
informants home?
Like, you know there's a,there's a rabbit hole.
You say that you know this isjust continued harassment,
because I'm um representing uh,the competent, or I'm

(52:52):
representing Hector Ayala andthe confidential informants key
to my case.
I think there was a lot theycould have explored there, but
they went through this pace.
I thought this trial would beat least two episodes.

Joshua Gilliland (53:04):
Yes, but sometimes the viewing public
isn't into that.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (53:08):
So as to jurisdiction, all cops in the
city have jurisdiction in theentire city and the way the
detectives in Manhattan arebroken up for the most part is a
South office and a North officeand they can really go wherever
they like.
But for the most part thebusiness district which is City

(53:28):
Hall South is one detectiveoverarching hierarchy and then
from City Hall North is anotherone.
So he probably is a Northdetective and so he would have
been within his jurisdiction.
Granted, he had no cause topull over, really, the van other

(53:51):
than to try to stop the witnessthere.
So I agree that it would nothave been a bad tactic to put
his PI on the stand in order to,you know, kind of flush that
out if he was going through thatparticular strategy.

Joshua Gilliland (54:08):
Gabby, you raised some interesting issues
with mayor fisk and conflicts ofinterest.
Can you walk us through theissue of, say, a?
Uh in this case he is aconvicted felon who's now mayor
of new york and still might berunning a crime family uh.
So can you help us understandwhat's going on?

Gabby Martin (54:30):
yeah, no, and it's it's been fascinating for me
because it's like you have thelegal side on.
So can you help us understandwhat's going on?
Yeah, no, and it's beenfascinating for me because it's
like you have the legal side onone side and then, obviously,
the kind of government and allthe kind of laws and regulations
that govern that.
Having worked in stategovernment, that's very exciting

(54:51):
to see, to see staff, peopleright and seeing very just like
we've been talking about therealism of the courtroom
procedure, sometimes not asrealistic, right, but there is a
lot of realism in how theoffice of the mayor operates,
right, that tracks with thingswe would see in state government

(55:12):
, municipal government, thatsort of thing.
And one of the big things thatoversees any branch of
government from the local, statelevel, federal level are
conflict of interest regulationsor laws, code of ethics, that
sort of thing.
And one of the major thingsthat you can't do which seems

(55:35):
common sense but it is codifiedin law is you really cannot use
your position for personalfinancial benefit.
Right, it's common sense, butyou would be violating the law
if you did that.
So in New York City it'sgoverned by the New York City
Charter, chapter 68, whichgoverns conflicts of interest

(55:56):
and there's a whole host ofconflicts of interest that arise
for municipal officers.
And I should also note, verykey here is not just public
servants, right, the electedofficials themselves, but also
the people who work with forthem.
Right, this individual that'sworking for Fisk, or Vanessa

(56:19):
right, who goes and visits thecrime families, but also Vanessa
herself, is subject to theconflicts of interest policies.
She is what is called anassociated person, right, she is
the spouse of the electedofficial and we get some
reference to this.
Right, his staff person, whoI'm imagining the woman who

(56:44):
works for him is his chief ofstaff.
This other shady character,right, it might be what we call
like a body man versus a chiefof staff, because he's, you know
, doesn't seem to have as muchkind of direction in the office.
He could have some other title,but basically conflicts of

(57:06):
interest would prevent them.
You cannot misuse the office,you can't misuse city resources.
So if this individual drove hiscity vehicle to this meeting
with the crime families, thatwould not be allowed.
And what they discuss isVanessa running, even though
Fisk seems to have taken a veryseparated position from the

(57:32):
crime organization.
Vanessa, obviously, and this isthe subject of their spousal,
you know kind of issues is intherapy is that she still wants
to and may still be running thecrime syndicate right, and so

(57:52):
she has to also take a step backbecause she's subject to the
same kind of conflict ofinterest policies, because
there's going to be certainthings that she knows as the
spouse of a mayor.
She can't violate thoseconfidentialities.
She can't use that informationuh for her own gain.
Um, there could be um a assaultsolution, if you will, if they

(58:16):
put the and obviously thiswouldn't necessarily be allowed
because we're talking about acrime syndicate.
But if there were a conflict ofinterest say a business that was
on the up and up um, that theycould put in what they call a
blind trust, which neithervanessa uh nor Fisk would have
to have access to.
It would have to be withsomebody who was an independent

(58:36):
trustee.
They could put those assetsthat would potentially cause a
conflict of interest, could putthem in a blind trust, which
would negate the conflict ofinterest while they were in
office.
But obviously we're talkingabout a crime uh organization
and washing money and all ofthat, and even this knowing
about what's happening uh couldcause him problems down the line

(58:58):
yeah, putting a criminaloperation to a blind trust seems
to uh not make a lot of sense,because the entire purpose is
being criminal uh.

Joshua Gilliland (59:12):
So you know, it's casual morals at best at
that point.
So it's super, super weird, uh,but your insight from your
state government days is superuh hopeful to understand.
So, with all that said, we getto the end of this episode, and

(59:38):
if I was advising someone whohad been a costume vigilante
superhero type and they'd beenouted and that involved the
death of a police officer, Iwould say now is a great time to
move to Lincoln, nebraska, orAnn Arbor, michigan or

(59:59):
Albuquerque.
It's time to go and not comeback.
And don't leave a forwardingaddress.
It's time to go.
Hector doesn't do that and infact he suits up again to go out

(01:00:21):
and ends up getting shotthrough the head, and his
rolling credits is very hauntingwith the sound of the frog from
Puerto Rico that he talkedabout, and the assailant has a
Punisher logo on his chest.
I don't think it's Frank Castle.
I think law enforcement istaking up summary executions,

(01:00:47):
which is a reason why we'll seeFrank Castle in the series later
.
But yeah, I think he needed tomove and not come back.
Uh, it's time for a newidentity and a new stage, far
away from new york city.
Uh, I want to get first, uh,chris, your thoughts on on it's
time to move oh, he should havebeen out of there.

Kris Butler (01:01:07):
You should have gotten him and his family plane
tickets, bus tickets what haveyou out the city.
That should have been yourfirst move.
Honestly, I didn't think he wasgoing to make it past the
courtrooms or the courthousesteps.
I thought he was going to bewalking out.
People were going to be, youknow doing, you know reporters
were going to be there.
He's going to be walking downthe steps to be like you know

(01:01:28):
know, matt says something andpow, thought that was just going
to be it.
But the fact that he went backout in costume and I don't
understand, as Matt, how you donot expect him to do this,
because think about how long foryou, matt, it took for you to
throw off the costume for forgood and for matt not to just be

(01:01:53):
there and be like what are youdoing?
Go back inside and honestly, Ithink, wouldn't that spark a an
investigation by the state?
Bar is like your actionsdeliberately led to this man's
death and, given the potentialyou know confidentiality issues
raised that we've raised alreadyI feel like that would, uh, it

(01:02:16):
would be something veryinteresting question.

Joshua Gilliland (01:02:21):
Uh, your honor , do you have thoughts on what
chris has raised?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (01:02:25):
yeah, I agree that the, the uh, the
death definitely, I think willwould raise some ethical issues,
in as much as it's clear thatthe revealing of his identity in
that courtroom probably was thereason for the hit and clearly
the white tiger should have beenon the next plane out to Puerto

(01:02:47):
Rico so he can listen one lasttime to the uh, the, the cookie
frog, um and and and disappearinto the rainforest for for for
a little time.
Um, I think in the in the comicbook world, his uh, younger
sister and or his niece take upthe mantle of the white tiger.

(01:03:10):
It'd be interesting to see ifthe show does a white tiger type
of show, which would highlighta younger Latina superhero,
which could be an interestingshow in and of itself.
So maybe we'll see a whitetiger show down the line with
his younger sister or with hisniece.

(01:03:32):
Is on many police officervehicles within the city of New

(01:03:53):
York and became popular with theBlue Lives Matter answer to
Black Lives Matter.
So the Punisher has gained abit of popularity amongst the
NYPD, and I think that this wasprobably someone either at the

(01:04:13):
behest of the kingpin or wassomeone that just believes to
take out all the vigilantes.

Joshua Gilliland (01:04:23):
It's dark, gabby, your thoughts.

Gabby Martin (01:04:27):
Yeah, I mean, I agree with Chris, that was my
feeling.
As soon as he was acquitted, Iwas like his days are numbered.
I thought he was definitelygoing to get killed walking out
of that courtroom.
But when an actor dies in reallife and then they're viciously

(01:05:06):
killed off and that's kind oftheir ending Right.
You know you have like a RayStevenson who's very sad to me,
but I agree, I think you knowwe're talking about kind of the
ethical violations that matt did, you know, revealing his
identity, and I think one thinghe didn't take into account
again, you know we talked abouthow revealing the information
put the lives of um hectorayala's family friends.

(01:05:29):
But it also kind of violatedhis own ability to stay in place
, right, not just this kind ofcultural piece of being the
white tiger, but he has everyright to stay in New York, right
To stay where he lives, rightIs, you know that decision to
unmask him upended his life.

(01:05:52):
As we said, he should have, forall intents and purposes, been
on the next, you know, plane,bus, train out of New York City,
um, but he didn't.
He shouldn't have had to, right, um, but Matt took this step,
um, that put his privacy at riskand you violated something much

(01:06:13):
deeper, because it has thiskind of deeper connection that I
don't think Matt took intoaccount.

Joshua Gilliland (01:06:20):
Yeah, lots of questions and lots of problems
with this.
Did I mean crossing Disneyproperties?
You know Ray Stevenson'scharacter from Ahsoka has been
recast with Rory McCann, atleast reportedly Did the actor
who played White Tiger die, andI missed that.

Gabby Martin (01:06:43):
Yeah, so that was the dedication at the beginning
of episode two.
Um, he unfortunately died abattle of cancer that I believe
he was dealing with whileshooting daredevil, which is why
he looks um the way he does.
So he did pass after he hadfilmed the scenes, um, I believe

(01:07:05):
at the end of last year, if notthe beginning of this year,
that's, I think it was at theend of 2023 maybe.

Kris Butler (01:07:19):
Um, because I know I looked that up afterwards, uh,
because I was like, who is thisdedicated to?

Joshua Gilliland (01:07:27):
and, yeah, well, now, all, now, all the
articles are about, oh, hischaracter died, and not when he
died troubling on all kinds oflevels because the if they added
that after the actor passed, Ifind that troubling on all kinds

(01:07:48):
of levels.
If that was part of the storyto begin with, I don't have a
problem with it, and dedicatingthe story to him is appropriate
in either situation because hedoes a great performance,
especially if he was fightingcancer while filming.

Kris Butler (01:08:07):
Yeah, it was the end of 2023 that he passed.

Joshua Gilliland (01:08:10):
So this was filmed a while ago.

Gabby Martin (01:08:10):
Yeah, I wonder if this was a end of 2023 that he
passed, so this was filmed awhile ago.

Kris Butler (01:08:14):
Yeah, yeah, I wonder if this was a part of the
first, uh, sort of few episodes, um, because you know it went
through extensive reshoots, uh,because people did not like the
direction of the of the first,you know, uh it died first go
around on christmas eve.

Judge Matthew Sciarri (01:08:30):
Christmas Eve 2023, december 24th 2023.
So it was right at the end of2023.
So it was probably right aftersome of the filming and then
they had to do some refilming,depending on the storyline.

Joshua Gilliland (01:08:45):
I think that would overlap with the writer's
strike and the other strikesthat took place.
Oh, that just.

Gabby Martin (01:08:54):
Yeah, I would.
I would imagine that was alwaysplanned.
Like you know, chris, and Isaid his days were numbered
walking out of that courtroom,so, but it is just tragic to
kind of line that up withsomebody who did die tragically,
um right, so it does make itall the more tough, um, but yeah

(01:09:18):
, it's, it's interesting because, as you said it's, it's part of
it's.
I find it's interesting to todetermine what's been reshoots
and what's been, um, you know,part of the, the original
storyline that's a lot to takein and a lot to uh like.

Joshua Gilliland (01:09:39):
My opinion would be very uh, fact, specific
on knowing what happened, and Idon't know how I feel about
that yet.
Well, all of that aside, what Ido feel good about is they're
doing an amazing job with thisseries.
Uh, you know, the depiction oflawyers are overall positive,

(01:10:02):
that, you know, the courtroomseems scenes.
Uh, aren't the like get up andscream at the tv.
Aren't the get up and scream atthe TV?
They're realistic, lookingenough, even if it is a weekend.
He's been charged a week agoand we're doing this.
What it's like, the Punishertrial in season two, taking like

(01:10:27):
a week.
That's not how courtrooms work,but the arguments and
everything seem plausible.
So, uh, with that said, anyclosing thoughts from uh, all of
you and we'll go in reverseorder, chris any, any closing
thoughts uh, you know, I Ithought this, uh I think I've

(01:10:52):
said before this was very rushed, um, but obviously they got
somewhere.

Kris Butler (01:10:56):
They gotta go, and so they're just like we have no
time for a proper murder trial,but I did think it was
interesting that they, what theyincluded.
I feel like it is definitelygoing to uh play a part later on
in the series, whether that's,um, the cop that is still alive,
uh, maybe the one in in thepunishers, you know, vest, or

(01:11:20):
maybe there are a bunch of themand they'll get their
comeuppance.
Whether, you know, uh, likejudge sereno said that the
district attorney was put inpower by fisk.
So that will come to play lateron and definitely like that
closing argument.
Maybe the theme of this is, youknow, heroes don't wear masks,

(01:11:41):
um, but, uh, you gave us somegood content for today to talk
about.
So, you know, and and it's notlike, uh, um, law and order
where they, you know, make alldefense attorneys look like the
scum of the earth.

Joshua Gilliland (01:11:57):
So, you know, a win is a win yes, yes, good,
good, good thought uh gabby youruh closing thoughts yeah, like
I said, I love the seeing bothum.

Gabby Martin (01:12:12):
You know obviously not just the lawyer um the
legal field and you know thelawyer drama and all that kind
of stuff and I agree it's it'snice to see a defense attorney
be the good guy for one um, butalso, like I said, seeing all
the kind of elected official.
What's happening in the kind ofmunicipal government world

(01:12:36):
which I hope they show a bitmore of is going to be really
interesting.
Obviously you have Gandolfinias the kind of very sketchy aid
to the mayor right that he maynot be totally on the up and up
as well, um, so it'll beinteresting to see how that all

(01:12:57):
part of the drama um plays outas well.
So I'm excited for that.

Joshua Gilliland (01:13:03):
And your honor , your closing thoughts.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (01:13:06):
A very good legal advisors, whoever's
uh helping with regards to theseshows.
The fact that we have goodissues to discuss is a very good
thing, because it shows thatthey're also probably
considering some of these issueswhen they decide the way that
the story is going to go.
And likewise, I like to see adefense attorney portrayed in a

(01:13:31):
nice light.
I had the privilege of havingmany, many wonderful, wonderful
defense attorneys appear infront of me, and I happen to be
very pro-defense attorney withregards to what they do on any
given day is not the easiestthing to do, and there are many,

(01:13:54):
many, many great prosecutorsthat also came in front of me on
any given day.
And I like things that portraythe criminal justice system and
show both the warts as well asthe virtues of the criminal
justice system, because it doeshave both.

(01:14:15):
And the fact that people willdiscuss some of the things that
happen in the criminal justicesystem is always a good thing,
because it's those kind ofthings that help reform the
criminal justice system.
Even if it's a you know, alittle show like Daredevil, it
still gets people discussingcertain things.

Joshua Gilliland (01:14:33):
Well, and at the risk of sounding like an
Eddie Haskell, the judge isdepicted well.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (01:14:39):
Yes, I like that judge a lot.
He was very realistic,including him being very mad
after putting his, because I'vebeen in that situation where
I've kind of stuck my neck outto make a particular ruling,
been in that situation wherewhere I've kind of stuck my neck
out to make a particular rulingand then something happens, uh,
which made me regret thatparticular decision.
So I understood where that thatjudge was coming from and it
was very realistically portrayedyeah, it's just.

Joshua Gilliland (01:15:03):
Having done cmcs many times for case
management conference.
For those who don't know theirabbreviation, you know it's nice
seeing that seems like a realjudge.
I'm glad to see that who's fairand normal sounding as opposed
to other depictions.
So all good stuff.
So with that I can now say wewill be at WonderCon on March

(01:15:29):
28th at 4 pm for Yar the Piratesof Star Wars or I'll say it
correctly, yar the Pirates ofStar Wars, super excited.
I've been re-watching a lot ofthe animated series and Skeleton
Crew.
One of the other lawyers textedme today and said you know who

(01:15:49):
hadn't watched Bad Batch yet andwent, went.
This is awesome, it's likeclone wars with seals and was
just like, yes, it's a fantasticshow.
I understand you mightaccidentally watch all three
seasons.
Uh, because there's lots ofpirates in every star wars
series and we'll get to talkabout pirates and can't wait.

(01:16:12):
And for those going to StarWars Celebration in Tokyo, at
least Chris and I will be thereand there'll be two other legal
geeks there as well.
So if you're going to Tokyo,say hi, we're going to try to
coordinate and I can't wait.
My grandfather went to Japanthree times.

(01:16:33):
They hosted Japanese exchangestudents when I was young, can't
wait to go and see everything,so it should be a wonderful time
, with a bunch of Star Wars fansgoing to go right before Amor
comes out.
So with that, everyone, staysafe, stay healthy and stay

(01:16:54):
geeky.
Take care now.