March 9, 2025 • 55 mins
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Retired) and Joshua Gilliland, Esq., discuss the first episodes of Daredevil Born Again. Join them for a discussion of murder, attempted murder, victim statements, sentencing, ethical concerns with motions in limine that discuss client confidences, defense of others, and self-defense.
No part of this recording should be considered legal advice.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Joshua Gilliland (00:02):
Hello everyone , my name is Joshua Gilliland.
One of the founding attorneysof the Legal Geeks With me is
retired Judge Matt Sciarino,from New York, now happily in
Florida, and we're going to talkabout Daredevil Born Again,
episodes one and two.
Your Honor, how are you today?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (00:25):
I am great I got to play some bonus
pickleball today, so it's been afun day.
Joshua Gilliland (00:31):
Yeah, we have very different lives now.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (00:37):
I'm enjoying the fact that I have to
physically think for a fewminutes every day, to think what
day it actually is.
Joshua Gilliland (00:45):
You, lucky man .
Yeah, that's a long ways offfor me, but congratulations
Thank you.
You worked very hard to getthere, congratulations.
So let's Daredevil born again.
There's a lot of New York lawat play at this, and I'm a
California attorney, and whilenothing that we're going to talk
(01:06):
about is actual legal advicebecause we're talking about a
fictional TV show with fictionalcharacters lawyers don't wear
fatigues and go out fightingcrime for community service.
We just don't do that but herewe are to talk about born again.
Now, I think as a point oforder, daredevil season three
(01:31):
was effectively the born againstory arc, so they're them
calling this born again again.
It's a little weird, but herewe go.
Honor general impressions ofthe series.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (01:45):
I'm very happy that it's back.
I very much like the Netflixseries.
While season one was the best,I think, of the three seasons,
it took a little bit of adownturn In season two.
It came back up In season three.
In my opinion, it was nice tosee the characters again.
Opinion.
(02:06):
It was nice to see um thecharacters again.
It was nice to see karen pageagain and and and I'm so happy
that you know it's the same castum, they were so good in the
netflix series and and it's it'sreally nice to see them really
all back they had amazing espritde corps and the characters.
Joshua Gilliland (02:26):
Well, the characters have the esprit de
corps.
The actors have an amazingchemistry that just binds them
all together, and part of thatchemistry is they have a law
firm that's named after the twolawyers and a non-lawyer.
And I'll just go out and saythat would not fly you, you
can't.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (02:44):
Is she still a non-lawyer?
Because I almost got theopinion that she's done law
school by this point and she youknow whether it was at night or
you know, they don't reallyaddress it, but I almost got the
feeling that she's now a lawyer, but I don't know.
They really don't address that.
Address that.
Yeah, clearly, if she's not alawyer, her name can't be in the
(03:06):
in on the masthead.
In in New York prohibits.
The only time that you can havesomeone that is on the masthead
that is no longer with us is ifthey were artists, if they're a
deceased partner that was apartner on the masthead before
he or she died.
Other than that, you can't haveaccountants or any other person
(03:29):
on the masthead.
Joshua Gilliland (03:32):
Exactly so, barring the fact that she took
the bar in between the lastseven years, she can't be part
of the name of the law firm,like it just doesn't work that
way.
I believe in all 50 states thatwould not fly.
So but I haven't researched all50 states.
(03:53):
That's just a gut feeling thatthat just doesn't work because
it implies the unauthorizedpractice of law and that's a
no-no.
We don't want people who arenot lawyers putting themselves
out as attorneys.
So so if it, if it's still theend of from season three, it's a
(04:14):
no-no.
If she got her jd and took thebar, cool, but let's see if they
drop that at some point.
Moving on, this is an amazingintro, with murder at the bar
and we have Bullseye come backand there's a killing spree.
(04:35):
There's at least eight peoplekilled and your Honor what
degree of murder would this be?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (04:44):
It's going to be basically second
degree and or first degree,depending if they can get it as
to a terrorist act.
Because of this, the sheeramount of murders that took
place, but in as much as firstdegree, had capital punishment,
which is declaredunconstitutional by New York.
For the most part, seconddegree murder is your top charge
(05:07):
in New York state and therewould be multiple counts because
so many people were killed andbecause of that there would be
other charges that would goalong with the murder in the
second degree.
Joshua Gilliland (05:18):
Yeah, it's brutal.
Foggy might have been anintentional hit.
So if there is a's a mur, wouldthat?
Could that be murder one undernew york?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (05:30):
murder , one in new york, for the most
part was was, was an enhancementdealing with the killing of a
law enforcement officer.
Um so, and it had the thecapital punishment element to it
.
So when one fell, the otherkind of fell by the wayside as
well.
There's other charges that,because of the mass murder
(05:52):
aspect of it that they couldbring, and you know he clearly
would be facing the maximums inNew York, which would be a
lifetime sentence without parole, which is the highest sentence
that a defendant can besentenced to.
Joshua Gilliland (06:10):
California law is different.
So it's interesting to hearthat comparison, because there's
intent here, I believe, for atleast Foggy, the others well.
It then varies because, again,if he's not intentionally going
out for specific individuals,but it's just a mass casualty
(06:31):
event, that's where lawyerswould start trying splitting
hairs.
Foggy is killed and let's justput this out there, there's
spoilers with this.
So please, if you're justrealizing that we're going to
detail now, spoilers ahead.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (06:51):
Foggy is no longer a member of the
firm of Murdoch, page and Nelson.
Joshua Gilliland (06:59):
No, and the actor is just so likable with
the way that the fact thatscreen time is so minimal in
episode one and his death is so,uh, personal and hurtful, with
uh karen page over him trying tokeep him from bleeding out.
(07:20):
Just very well done for animpactful uh opening.
Uh.
But you have matt murdoch onthe rooftop with the killer and
they're in full-blown mutual conum conflict at this point, with
beating the crap out of eachother.
And when foggy dies, you knowthere's the yelling of like why.
(07:45):
And Murdoch pushes Bullseye offthe roof.
How would you categorize that?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (07:57):
With the height of the roof, it was
clear that I think his intentwas to end Bullseye's life.
I was really sorry to see Foggygo too.
He certainly was one of myfavorite characters.
He was one of the most likablelawyers that has ever been on
the small screen and he was agood example of a lawyer that
(08:20):
really wanted to always kind ofdo the right thing.
So it's sad when one of thoserare characters of a lawyer that
is someone likable is gottenrid of.
But clearly Matt was.
There's no doubt in my mind andyou know clearly his lawyer, if
he was ever to be charged withthis type of case, would argue
(08:43):
that he didn't intend to to killhim, that it was in the heat of
the moment, that they were bothfighting, that he was justified
and in defending himself and inand that they slipped and fell
off the roof.
But but it's clear from um youknow later things and his
discussions with kingpin laterthat he intended to to kill
Bullseye.
Joshua Gilliland (09:05):
I think they could knock it down to
manslaughter because of thepassion of the moment,
absolutely, absolutely.
His friend just died.
I think there would also be areal risk of jury nullification,
with a jury going.
We're OK with this.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (09:21):
Yeah, I don't even see a grand jury
indicting him for it.
With as egregious as bullseye'saction were, I would see even a
grand jury saying no true billand not indicting him for any
serious charges there.
Joshua Gilliland (09:37):
Which is not how the system is supposed to
work.
But I could see a DA just goingno, we're not, we're just not,
and that's not how the lawshould be administered, but
that's how it could play out.
So let's get to the victimstatement for the sentencing,
(10:00):
which I thought was fascinatingand well done.
And again, not my area ofpractice.
I'm a new discovery guy.
I do civil litigation Like thisis not my world.
The number of criminalappearances I had as a young
attorney is maybe three, youknow.
So again, just not not mywheelhouse, but your Honor, you
(10:23):
did this for many years as ajudge.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (10:26):
I did and I've had many sentences and
as part of a sentence in NewYork.
It's very, very well defined inour criminal procedure law as
to the steps involved.
The prosecutor gives astatement.
If a victim is going to give astatement.
(10:49):
There were various victimrights acts that were passed
during the governorship ofGovernor Pataki in New York and
the victims have a right to givea statement as well.
And if the victim is going togive a statement, they do have
to give notice to give astatement as well.
And if the victim is going togive a statement, they do have
to give notice that they dointend to make a statement.
And then, after the victim'sstatement, the defense lawyer
(11:12):
has the right to make astatement.
And then the defendant, underour law, also has the right to
make a statement and in fact hasto be asked do you wish to make
a statement?
And they have to affirmativelysay yes or no and then make
their statement.
But they have an absolute rightto make a statement.
(11:33):
There's no requirements withregards to how long any one
statement has to be or how shortany one statement has to be.
You know you certainly can.
As a judge, I would be allowedto run my courtroom and if the
statement got out of, if it wasno longer relevant to the
(11:56):
proceedings or to the actions,you could tell the defendant to
either address the case or I'mgoing to be ending your
statement, and in somesituations that did happen.
Yeah, with victims too, yousometimes have to kind of calm
(12:17):
down, and there were someincredibly passionate statements
that I presided over fromvictims over the years that I
can still recall some of thosestatements.
They're horrific, and after allof those statements are made is
(12:40):
when it is then up to the judgeto pronounce his or her
sentences of the defendant.
But the judge has to listen toall of those statements
beforehand.
And then, of course, there'scertain minimums and maximums
that the law puts forth that thejudge has to take into account
(13:01):
when he or she is sentencing.
But as long as it's a legalsentence, it is done right after
all of those statementsgenerally, and the judge
sometimes makes a statement aswell as part of the sentencing,
as the judge did in this case.
I think he made a veryappropriate statement and he
(13:22):
sentenced consecutively to lifesentences without parole, which
basically means that they wouldbe served one after the other,
after the other.
Some of those might be onappeal, made to run concurrently
, which means at the same time,because generally if it's a
separate act it's supposed to beconsecutive.
(13:44):
If it's not a separate act, soyou can make the argument that
this was all part of one act.
I think for each of the peoplekilled, because there was some
time in between, that it waspurely appropriate to do it
consecutively as separate acts.
So I think that also when it'segregious like this, it's less
(14:06):
chance that an appellate court'sgoing to overturn it.
Joshua Gilliland (14:10):
What did you think about the procedural
depiction of Murdoch's testimonyon having the defendant give a
response and then the judge'sdecision?
How did that play out in yourmind?
For this looked good for acomic book tv show.
(14:31):
Yeah, I, I thought it wasincredibly accurate.
Judge Matthew Sciarrin (14:34):
Actually , you know, clearly, clearly,
one of the showrunners that'sdealing, or the legal advisors,
um, you know, kind of at leastlooked up the procedures in the
CPL and had them all follow theprocedures, because it was very,
very accurate to what I wouldsee on any given day in a New
York court.
Joshua Gilliland (14:54):
Impressive yeah, it's.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (14:57):
It's nice to hear the courtroom
depiction goes like yeah, that,that looked good yeah yeah, I, I
was, you know, because you'relooking for that, as as a lawyer
you're, you're kind of lookingfor where they go off script um
and and they were.
They were very much in linewith the criminal procedure laws
of new york York during thatsentencing.
Joshua Gilliland (15:18):
Good, good, I'm glad to hear that because
not something I've everparticipated in.
So seeing that and hearing thatis a good thing.
So cool, very cool.
Let's take a look at the otherbig legal issue.
(15:38):
Is there's a recall in New YorkCity for the mayor?
Now, as you know, being a partof a Western state or from the
progressive era politics, wehave recall procedures in
California.
We've had two attempts atrecalling a governor.
One was successful, one wascrushed pretty effectively
(16:02):
before it really went far.
And when I saw this was part ofthe story element for the
series, I did a little doubletake because I wasn't expecting
a recall story from New York.
Can you walk us through howthat could actually happen or if
(16:24):
this is accurate or what thesituation is?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (16:28):
New York does not have a recall
procedure for either thegovernor or the mayor and I
don't believe that there's anykind of recall provision for any
elected official in the stateof New York.
(16:56):
Interestingly, a bit of a callto have the governor remove the
mayor and that is a procedure inNew York and it's historically
has been threatened twice and onboth times, when it was very
(17:17):
clear that the mayor was goingto be removed, they did resign.
One of these is the famousJimmy Walker.
There's a movie about it.
It's a.
It's a in 1932 was when ithappened and one was William
O'Dwyer in 1950.
And one was William O'Dwyer in1950.
(17:39):
And there was some talk of EricAdams that the governor might
remove the mayor from officebecause the mayor was accused of
basically taking some bribesfrom Turkish Turkish, the
country of Turkey officials andDonald Trump pardoned him for
(18:00):
that action, so it never went totrial.
He clearly has said that he isnot guilty of any of these
crimes and he's never beenproven guilty of any of these
crimes, but there was a bit of acall to remove him.
The procedure for removal isvery weird.
The procedure for removal isvery weird.
(18:43):
It's basically the governor hasto give her intention in this
case her, because the governorof New York is currently a
female would give her intentionto present a defense to the
governor.
It does not in any way putforth what this procedure would
look like.
Does he go to her office andbeg for mercy?
Is it done in public?
No one knows what thisprocedure is, but he has the
right to present his defense tothe governor, in whatever form
that might be, and then at theend of that suspension the
(19:06):
governor can remove the mayor.
There would not then be anelection.
So again, that was differentfrom what they did in the show,
because in the show they had arecall followed by an election
where the kingpin is elected tobe mayor.
Another spoiler there um, the,the public advocate, which is
the third elected post in newyork city governments.
(19:28):
The first one is the mayor, thesecond one is the controller,
the third one is the publicadvocate.
The public advocate wouldbecome the acting mayor and
would, I believe, finish out theterm.
Or there would be then aspecial election done at the
next November and New York hasranked voting, so that was
(19:51):
adopted a couple of electionsago.
So then it would be an electionfor the mayor thereafter.
Joshua Gilliland (19:57):
So then it would be an election for the
mayor thereafter.
So by way of comparison forCalifornia with the
gubernatorial recalls that wehave the election.
It's two elections at once.
So part one on the ballot isshould there be a recall, yes or
(20:19):
no?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (20:23):
And then the next part is who do you
want?
Joshua Gilliland (20:24):
to be governor the terminator.
Yeah, I want the terminator,and that's how.
And so, when, whenschwarzenegger was elected as
governor to to knock out graydavis, there were people who
voted yes to recall and thenthey voted for the candidate of
their choice, whether it was uhgray davis or uh, the lieutenant
(20:45):
governor, or schwarzeneggerthere were.
There were a bunch of people onthe ballot.
It turned into uh craziness andthat's how schwarzenegger won
and then goes on to win in thenext general election as well.
There was like a brief attemptto recall him and that went
(21:06):
nowhere because Californianswere a little sick of it.
Newsom had a recall effort.
The current governor and theopposition was able to get it on
the ballot for the recall, andthe political strategy for that
(21:26):
recall election was for all thenewsome uh supporters to vote no
on the recall and they saidleave it blank for uh, like an
alternate candidate and no grand.
I voted for.
I did not leave part two blank,uh, uh, but I voted no, just
(21:48):
because I'm not a fan of thezaniness uh that can happen from
recalls.
I don't know if it will happenagain in the history of
California.
Those are the two that we had,unless there's some sneaky one,
but I thought Gray Davis was thefirst governor to get recalled
in California.
So what they depict in the showis different than what I've
(22:12):
experienced as a Californiavoter, because this was
preordained that there's arecall.
As a California voter, becausethis was preordained, that
there's a recall, so like theymet that hoop already and it
makes it sound like it was justa very different procedure At
play For a recall to take place.
So, which brings us to Some ofthe other many issues, is we're
(22:43):
introduced to another vigilantewhose name is white tiger.
This is a marvel character Iactually know very little about,
uh, but again another streetlevel vigilante and they rank
them up there with uh, you know,there's spider-man, you have
punisher, so like those arepower man, iron fist, jessica
jones would be those streetlevel type type heroes that
(23:06):
people interact with more sothan, say, a captain america, uh
, uh, who is more the Avengerslevel threat.
So we see a subway scene wherewe have two individuals.
It looks like they're beatingup a third individual.
The Good Samaritan comes in,he's on the phone, ends the
(23:32):
phone call and intercedes and inthat fight one of the
individuals who was theassailant gets killed by a
subway train turns out those arepolice officers.
Multiple issues here.
First off, did hector have aduty to rescue the victim and
(23:56):
I'll just say there's no a dutyto rescue the victim and I'll
just say there's no general dutyto rescue?
So the answer to that is no.
But we do have the third partydefense of others and your Honor
.
Could you walk us through howthat works in New York and
whether or not this would applyto this character?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (24:16):
The white tiger at that point was
not acting in his white tigeridentity.
He was basically looked likegoing home.
It was in civilian clothes andhe stumbles upon two people
clearly beating a third person.
Up to the point of it lookedlike they might beat him to
(24:41):
death.
He had absolutely no legalobligation possibly a moral
obligation to rescue this otherperson.
Maybe a moral obligation tocall the police.
Maybe a moral obligation tocall the police.
The two police officers thatwere beating this person to
(25:05):
death did not have any markingsthat they were police officers.
They did not at any point saystop, police, or give any
indication that they were policeofficers, and at no point when
the White Tiger got involved didthey say stop, we're police
(25:26):
officers.
So he was, in my mind, somewhatjustified to use physical force
to stop the potential killingof this third party.
He also clearly did not intendfor that other police officer to
(25:47):
get hit by the train.
He was just pushed and he felland he was hit by the train
because the train was coming atthat particular time.
So he would have a very good andI'm sure as we'll see in the
trial justification defense,because he is subsequently
(26:08):
arrested and charged with themurder of a police officer.
That would be murder in thefirst degree and his defense
would be A.
I didn't know that they werepolice officers, I just thought
that they were trying to beat upthis person and I was trying to
protect and save this otherperson's life, and that is one
(26:32):
of the.
He would have been entitled toa justification charge and the
prosecutor would have to provethat he was not justified beyond
the reasonable doubt excellentand great scene I mean fights
well choreographed very, verywell done scene.
(26:54):
Yeah.
Joshua Gilliland (26:55):
Yeah, it looks fantastic and which is again
one of the strongest parts ofthe show is the physical stunts
that they do From behind thescenes footage from season one.
They do a lot of work and thatattention to detail continues
(27:15):
and that's a great thing to see.
So I started thinking about themotion elimination.
So, just backing up on how weget to that scene, uh, matt has
a retired police officer, lastname of cherry, who plays
private eye and doesinvestigations much like, say,
(27:36):
say, a Jessica Jones would bedoing, and Cherry goes out and
finds out some information andduring interviewing the wife,
where the other partner at thelaw firm is talking to the wife,
cherry goes into the bedroomand basically conducts a search
(28:00):
of the client's house and findsa box under the bed that has the
white tiger costume and themagical amulet that gives
additional powers of some kind.
So, first off, just as ifyou're a superhero costume
(28:20):
vigilante, I would hope theywould take better care to not
have the costume just that easyto find.
Like there's no Batcave, likethere's no false wall, it's a
box under the bed that doesn'tseem to be.
Again, if you're going to playcrime fighter, that doesn't seem
(28:47):
to be a good plan because youliterally can just trip over it.
It also raises the issue of hadthe police bothered to search
the guy's house yet?
And this makes me think no,because that wasn't taken into
any custody.
So again, that just seems weird, problematic.
But after that we then jump tothis motion.
(29:07):
First, a client meeting whereMurdoch confronts his client
about this and raises the issueof should the client have told
Murdoch by the way, I'm also avigilante of should the client
have told Murdoch.
By the way, I'm also avigilante.
There are issues with asking aclient hey, do you commit other
(29:29):
crimes?
That could get bad.
But we then jump to a court inchambers, courtroom scene, where
a motion in limine was broughtto suppress this evidence
because the prejudicial effectoutweighs its probative value.
Your Honor, what were?
I want to get your thoughts onthis, but one of the big issues
(29:52):
that I had with it is, if thestate didn't know about it yet,
did Matt commit any ethicalviolations by disclosing it in a
motion in limine that hisclient is also a vigilante,
which is a crime, in order tosuppress it?
So again, I think it'sproblematic.
(30:13):
But what was your reaction tothis?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (30:17):
Yeah, they clearly started the scene
somewhat in the middle.
So we don't know if the statehad already become aware of his
identity Somehow.
I doubt it for the same reasonsthat you just stated.
It does not appear that therewas a search of the apartment,
because clearly, if there was asearch of the apartment, they
might have found this emblem,the apartment, because clearly,
(30:38):
if there was a search of theapartment they might have found
this, this emblem, um, or ifthere was a search, they might
not have known that, what that?
Yeah, I find that hard tobelieve, but that they didn't
know what that costume or emblemmeant and just left it there,
um.
So it's, unless there was, youknow, a, a precursory search of
(30:59):
the apartment thereafter andthat's how they know that he is
the White Tiger.
But I don't think any of thathappened.
So I think Matt figures thatthey would find out soon enough,
so possibly then made themotion in Lemonay, which I also
find to be a bit weird in that Ithink he would have the motion
(31:23):
prepared and ready to file butnot actually do it, because he
is kind of disclosing aprivileged conversation that he
had with his client by bringingthose facts, unless he got the
client's permission to make thatmotion, and none of that is
(31:44):
before us.
So I think that it was justsome poor writing in that they
didn't really consider all ofthose legal issues and they had
him make the motion.
But yeah, there were someethical problems with regards to
Sam, because he clearly isdisclosing something that he
(32:06):
learned in his conversationswith his client and those
conversations are privileged andit's his client's privilege.
It's not his privilege, so hewould not have the right to
disclose that.
Joshua Gilliland (32:20):
It's.
Yeah, it was just this ethicalminefield that is created by
this motion and eliminate, tosuppress that evidence.
And if it's come out again, ifit's come out in the press,
there are new issues on top ofthat and we now have the
Spider-Man no Way Home scenario,but I don't think that's
(32:43):
happened yet.
I don't think this is publicinformation.
So the fact that a motioneliminated is brought seems
ethically problematic.
It's theoretical that it couldhave been on an exhibit list and
(33:04):
that's why murdoch brought theum motion and lemonade, but this
entire again we come in in themiddle of it and it's just weird
.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (33:15):
Uh, I mean, it's clearly it was a
secret identity, because if, ifit wasn't a secret identity and
and if it was common knowledgethat this person was the white
tiger, it would have been allover the press.
The DA would be kind ofinvolved in the issue of it
(33:35):
being the white tiger.
So it clearly is a secretidentity and as such, it would
be clearly privileged.
So, yeah, I think either Mattmade a ethical blunder or it was
just not something that thewriters took into consideration.
Joshua Gilliland (33:56):
I also wonder if, having a client who's a
vigilante and the prosecution'strying to bring that out, if it
raises the flag of bad characterevidence now and at least in
California and in federal courts, you know you're not supposed
(34:17):
to bring evidence of badcharacter because it's
prohibited.
On the flip side, if theopposing party brings out
evidence of good character, thenthe bad character evidence can
be used to rebut that.
Uh, have evidence that couldshow that there was conduct that
(34:48):
was well, it's just as.
That's just how he is.
Uh, you know he he fights, youknow he beats people up.
Therefore, you know he's guiltyof beating these people up like
it's.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (34:56):
That's why bad character evidence is
not allowed to come in which iswhat his in limine motion was,
was was it was it was to.
It was to prohibit the theprosecution from using, uh,
evidence of prior bad acts.
And and new york is, um, unlikemost states, it has no code of
(35:19):
evidence um, they, they havecreated, uh, in recent vintage,
what is New York's guide toevidence, which is created by
the Court of Appeals and otherpeople that sit on this guide
board, and it's a statement ofwhat the evidence is based on,
the case law, and it's almosttaken the position of a code to
(35:46):
some extent.
But the law in New York dealingwith prior bad acts is from a
case it's called the Peopleversus Molyneux, so it's called
the Molyneux exception to priorbad acts coming in.
And there are certain thingswhich you can make an argument
for allowing these prior badacts into evidence.
(36:09):
If they show certain thingsmotive, if they show opportunity
, intent, preparation for somecommon scheme or plan, knowledge
, the identity.
If these prior bad acts are andhere's where I think they might
have been allowed in to showthe identity of him as the white
(36:31):
tiger and that this was part ofhis vigilantism, and to show
his identity as the white tiger,maybe, arguably, a prosecutor
would argue that that's why wehave to allow in these prior bad
acts if they are even bad actsIs acting as a vigilante a bad
(36:54):
act, arguably because you don'thave the right to do some of the
things that you're doing.
But so you know it was not a badtactical decision to get a
ruling on prohibiting.
But you know it goes back to Ithink it was a little bit
premature to make that motion.
(37:14):
The way a Molyneux motionusually would come before me is
the prosecutor would make themotion that we want to use these
prior bad acts because of theygo to show motive, they go to
show intent, whatever it is, andthen the defense would say that
the probative value is so faroutweighed by the prejudice it's
(37:36):
going to show against my client, which is the exact words that
Matt used.
And those are the legal wordsthat the judge would consider.
And I was happy to see that thejudge, I think, made the
correct legal ruling in thiscase.
I didn't think he was.
And after that argument is madeis when the court would rule.
(37:57):
And then, if the defendant wereto possibly present a defense
which in some way makes thoseprior bad acts relevant again,
it's possible that the courtcould allow the prosecutor in
their rebuttal case to bring inthose prior bad acts, and that's
usually the way it would comebefore the jury.
Joshua Gilliland (38:21):
Yeah, there's thank you for that explanation
because there's a connection.
Yeah, there's thank you forthat explanation because there's
a connection between prior badacts and prejudicial effect
versus probative value, and Iwould think you would actually
make both arguments in order fora belt and suspenders.
But again, it's a highlyproblematic scene.
(38:43):
Highly problematic scene.
Uh, I do think the right resultis made, reached by the judge.
Uh, because this does look likethe, the da is just trying to,
you know, pile it on and in thisworld, which is said a couple
years in the future.
So I think it's you know, sincethey make reference that fisk
(39:04):
was going to be the 112th mayor.
Uh, also, the you know, andthey're on 110 right now.
Uh, the effects of, uh, captainamerica, brave new world.
I think that election was 2028,uh, so maybe 2024 in mcu, but I
think it's 2028 after InfinityWar.
(39:26):
And how would people viewvigilantes in that world where,
you know you had half thepopulation disappear, turn into
dust and then come back and thesurvivors lived for five years
in that world, from 2017 to 2022, I think is their timing of of,
(39:52):
uh, the blip.
So people might be okay withvigilantes and superheroes,
because there's been alieninvasions more than one.
Uh, they might have not have aproblem with the avengers at
this point in time because ofwhat happened.
On the flip side, it dependswhat the vigilante is doing like
(40:14):
.
If people are team punisher,that's.
That's not a good place to befrom a civil society, um.
But if there's rampant crimeand you have again vigilantes
tipping the balance so peoplefeel safe, they might be okay
with it and it might not be badcharacter in somebody's eyes.
So bring that up.
(40:35):
If the vigilante is viewed aspopular could backfire from a
prosecutorial point of view.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (40:45):
And clearly because they did do a
lot of scenes with the man onthe street as part of the
campaign coverage, where you hada lot of people saying that the
reason that they were votingfor the kingpin was because of
the rampant crime and that theonly people doing anything about
(41:06):
it was the vigilantes and thepeople in the suits and that the
cops were unable to take careof this.
So you could very well have alarge jury pool that is not
anti-vigilante and I'm sure whenthey do jury selection, that
(41:26):
would be part of the voir direthat Matt would engage in is,
even though he got thisfavorable ruling, he would know
that it's still possible thatsomewhere down the line maybe
the press or someone else isgoing to make the connection
that this is the white tiger.
So one of the things I want tofind in my jury selection, or
(41:51):
jurors that are somewhatsympathetic towards the
vigilantes, if in fact it comesout that the person that's being
accused of these crimes is infact a vigilante, yeah, it'd be
like if one of the jurors saidlike yeah, a vigilante saved me.
Joshua Gilliland (42:06):
Okay, which vigilante saved you, the white
tiger?
We thank you for your excuse.
Bye, thanks, as opposed toagain.
Yeah, spider-man saved me, cool.
Okay, thank you for yourservice, but there could be a
(42:28):
category where it's on the line,but I would think the
prosecution would want no onewho's been saved by a vigilante
or any superhero.
Almost I would not want on on myjury if I'm the prosecutor in
this kind of case which could bereally hard because of the
battle of new york with loki andthe avengers, because a lot of
(42:54):
people would qualify for thatand a lot of uh that they
survived it.
Uh to uh.
You know the battle in uhinfinity war uh that takes place
in new york by dr strange'shouse.
So I mean, and this is a worldwhere there's been lots of
(43:14):
activity in new york with heroes, so that's going to be the jury
questionnaire might be thesimple way to knock that out
before even getting to void ear,but it's a fascinating
discussion to think about howthat trial could look.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (43:33):
You almost have every citizen of New
York in the Marvel universeexperiencing some form of
post-traumatic stress at thispoint, I would think yeah,
everyone's going to be afraid ofloud noises because any flash
of light in the sky would wouldfreak them out.
Joshua Gilliland (43:48):
Especially, like the United States has been
lucky that the number of actualbattles that have taken place on
our soil it's limited to theCivil War, the civil war 9-11
(44:12):
and a couple weird incursionsduring world war ii with a.
I know the balloon attack.
You know that set some trees onon fire in oregon, like there's
there's not a lot of right.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (44:21):
I think there was a japanese sub
that took a couple of shots onthe West Coast and there was a
U-boat or two off of Long Island.
But yes, clearly the UnitedStates has been very lucky that
it has very large oceans on bothsides.
With September 11th, you know,you did have a hyper tense
(44:53):
population for a very long timebecause you know we had we had
military planes flying over forweeks and we didn't have the
usual commercial planes becausethey were all grounded at that
point.
So the military planes whenthey went over you, it was a
very foreign experience for alot of New Yorkers.
(45:17):
And you know so really, if youup that by the scale of the MC
universe happenings in New York,by the scale of the mc universe
happenings in in new york, youwould have a, a populace that is
pretty high strung.
Joshua Gilliland (45:29):
Yeah, because you think about the.
You know the events of theother daredevil series or the
defenders it's like.
So there are, there's a ninjacult running around, like people
are going to notice that stuffand it's going to be in
collective memory, um, you knowwhether it's 20 years in the
past or 10 or 5, uh, or lastweek, like people are going to
(45:54):
be on their toes, uh, aboutthose type of events.
So, uh, again, jury selectioncould get weird, uh, but if
you're at the point where no onein new york can sit on the jury
because everyone's been saved,that again it can tip the other
direction.
You know they.
They highlight in, uh, you knowthe hawkeye series, that after
(46:17):
the initial battle of new yorkthere were a lot of people who
were upset at the avengers.
You know blame the people whosaved you.
But by the time of the Hawkeyeseries, you know there's the
Rogers musical.
People have swung the other way, uh.
So, again, if there's more thanone musical on Broadway about
superheroes, you might have aproblem, problem in finding a
(46:42):
jury's pool that can meeteveryone's needs.
So with that we get.
You know, the victim of thesubway attack is hard to find
and the police officers trackhim down and Matt figures out
where the guy is as well.
(47:03):
Through a series of events,matt gets to him first and Matt,
as Matt Murdock gets the guyout of the apartment.
Cherry is going to pick him upand Matt is waiting for the two,
I'm going to say, corruptpolice officers.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (47:22):
Yeah, I think that if you have any
doubt as to whether or not thepolice officers were justified
in beating this person on thesubway station when the white
tiger got involved, that doubtis clearly taken away from you
with regards to this scene,because they were clearly going
(47:42):
to finish the job and get rid ofthis person who they failed to
get rid of at the subway station, and you know, really it was a
hit job and they clearly aredirty cops.
Joshua Gilliland (48:00):
Which is frustrating for police officers
who watch this and go like guys,no, no, we don't have Punisher
tattoos.
No, now, granted, matt can'tsee I don't know if he can sense
that there's a Punisher tattooon the corrupt officer's wrist
(48:20):
was uh troubling.
Um, it also highlights howmarvel comics did not like
seeing police officers startputting punisher logos on, you
know, tops of police cars.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (48:33):
Uh, they didn't like that and they
wrote it into stories about thepunisher not liking it and I
will not comment on the amountof police officers that I know
that have punisher decals on ontheir vehicles I'm going to just
say not okay, uh, not okay.
Joshua Gilliland (48:53):
That said, you know, my mom was a paramedic,
grew up with lots of policeofficers as, uh, family friends,
along with firefighters.
So not okay firefighters, sonot okay.
That said, so we have thisfight that takes place and they
rough up murdoch and thenthey're going to execute him on
(49:14):
his knees, gun to his head, andhe says please don't do this.
And there's debate if he'stalking to the corrupt police
officers or to himself, becausewe end with an incredible fight
scene where he beats the snotout of those two.
He gets beat up too.
(49:36):
So there's his blood at thescene.
Your honor, what's yourthoughts on this being
self-defense?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (49:46):
First off, I don't think there's a
character in the Marvel Universethat gets beat up as badly or
as much as Matt Murdock.
He really really gets beat up alot and not just like a little
bit, but I'm always amazed thathe can come back after all of
these beatings.
(50:07):
He clearly again would have ajustification defense.
They were clearly trying tokill him so he would put forth a
defense that he was justifiedin doing what he did.
And again, if he's ever triedand if the series goes along
(50:27):
with some of the comic books, Ithink he does get tried under
the King, in the Kingpinadministration.
There's also, you know, spoileralert that there there is a,
there's a series where hebecomes the DA under the Kingpin
administration.
So it's curious to see whichway they're going to go, because
(50:48):
they're clearly getting theirsource materials from a couple
of really really good comicseries of the Daredevil.
But he would again theprosecutor would have to prove
that he was not justified totake the actions that he did
beyond a reasonable doubt beforethey would be allowed to
consider whether or not he wasguilty of the crimes that he's
(51:11):
alleged to to have done yeah,thank you.
Joshua Gilliland (51:17):
It's a it's very well done.
I mean, it's a very well donefight.
I saw one person on, I think,on tiktok go.
Did murdoch kill those guys?
I don't think so, becausethat's very not matt murdoch.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (51:30):
Yeah he, which is why you know when,
when he um tosses bullseye, oryou know off the roof core, matt
Murdock is a strugglingCatholic.
You know and you know all thedaredevil imagery and and and
(51:54):
and it's it's a very you knowreligious undertones to to
daredevil.
You know he is very muchstruggles with the actions that
he takes.
There's always a priestinvolved in all the series where
(52:19):
he either goes for confessionor for support.
You know he really is a goodmoral Catholic who really kind
of understands you knowpunishment and virtue and you
know it's it's a it's got a lotof religious undertones to it
and it's not an overly religiousshow.
But but you clearly sense, uhyeah, that that that struggling
(52:40):
irish catholic um, kind of kindof being in matt murdoch yeah
it's.
Joshua Gilliland (52:46):
You have him going and hanging out by a
church hearing the singingthat's taking place inside and
his priest that he confided in,that knew he was Daredevil was
killed.
So there's probably guilt overthat, which is why he's not
(53:07):
attending a service.
Uh, again, I'm guessing at that, but we don't see him go in
where you know he would go talkto his priest in you know the
earlier series, uh, you know,with this character.
So, again, a lot to unpack, butagain it is fascinating and
(53:27):
I've briefly discussed this withmy pastor, who enjoys it
immensely as well, uh, as alutheran, which is not
catholicism, but we have somevery similar uh, scriptures and
doctrine that we follow.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (53:43):
So, uh , but we don't listen yeah right
, luther's problem was was thatthe catholic church got away
from itself, um, through so manyvarious things that it was
doing, um, you know, with, withthe most being that the selling
of, of dispensations for thatguilt.
Um, so you know the the cathCatholic Church was capitalizing
(54:06):
on Catholic guilt by saying, ifyou pay us this amount of money
, we can, you know, cut yourtime in purgatory.
Joshua Gilliland (54:15):
And.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (54:15):
Martin Luther clearly didn't think
because he was a very devoutCatholic himself that he didn't
think that the Catholic Churchwas doing the right thing by
doing all these things.
But you know, catholic guilt isdefinitely a theme.
Um in daredevil absolutely, andit's.
It's fascinating havingquestions of faith and an action
(54:37):
adventure superhero story yeah,yeah and and great questions of
lore, and I expect many more asthe series continues.
Joshua Gilliland (54:47):
Part of the reason why I really enjoy it,
because I enjoy both immensely,and being able to see them
depicted with thoughtfulness isa rewarding watching experience.
So with that, we will continueour analysis of Daredevil Born
again.
We will continue our analysisof Daredevil Born again.
For those who are attendingWonderCon, I can say that we
(55:09):
will be there with a panel.
I will not say any more untilwe can release the schedule,
which Comic-Con Internationalwill do by March 14th.
So stay tuned for more aboutwhat we will be presenting at
WonderCon in Anaheim, california.
(55:29):
So, everyone, thank you fortuning in.
Wherever you are, stay safe,stay healthy and stay geeky,
take care.
Hello everyone , my name is Joshua Gilliland.
One of the founding attorneysof the Legal Geeks With me is
retired Judge Matt Sciarino,from New York, now happily in
Florida, and we're going to talkabout Daredevil Born Again,
episodes one and two.
Your Honor, how are you today?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (00:25):
I am great I got to play some bonus
pickleball today, so it's been afun day.
Joshua Gilliland (00:31):
Yeah, we have very different lives now.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (00:37):
I'm enjoying the fact that I have to
physically think for a fewminutes every day, to think what
day it actually is.
Joshua Gilliland (00:45):
You, lucky man .
Yeah, that's a long ways offfor me, but congratulations
Thank you.
You worked very hard to getthere, congratulations.
So let's Daredevil born again.
There's a lot of New York lawat play at this, and I'm a
California attorney, and whilenothing that we're going to talk
(01:06):
about is actual legal advicebecause we're talking about a
fictional TV show with fictionalcharacters lawyers don't wear
fatigues and go out fightingcrime for community service.
We just don't do that but herewe are to talk about born again.
Now, I think as a point oforder, daredevil season three
(01:31):
was effectively the born againstory arc, so they're them
calling this born again again.
It's a little weird, but herewe go.
Honor general impressions ofthe series.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (01:45):
I'm very happy that it's back.
I very much like the Netflixseries.
While season one was the best,I think, of the three seasons,
it took a little bit of adownturn In season two.
It came back up In season three.
In my opinion, it was nice tosee the characters again.
Opinion.
(02:06):
It was nice to see um thecharacters again.
It was nice to see karen pageagain and and and I'm so happy
that you know it's the same castum, they were so good in the
netflix series and and it's it'sreally nice to see them really
all back they had amazing espritde corps and the characters.
Joshua Gilliland (02:26):
Well, the characters have the esprit de
corps.
The actors have an amazingchemistry that just binds them
all together, and part of thatchemistry is they have a law
firm that's named after the twolawyers and a non-lawyer.
And I'll just go out and saythat would not fly you, you
can't.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (02:44):
Is she still a non-lawyer?
Because I almost got theopinion that she's done law
school by this point and she youknow whether it was at night or
you know, they don't reallyaddress it, but I almost got the
feeling that she's now a lawyer, but I don't know.
They really don't address that.
Address that.
Yeah, clearly, if she's not alawyer, her name can't be in the
(03:06):
in on the masthead.
In in New York prohibits.
The only time that you can havesomeone that is on the masthead
that is no longer with us is ifthey were artists, if they're a
deceased partner that was apartner on the masthead before
he or she died.
Other than that, you can't haveaccountants or any other person
(03:29):
on the masthead.
Joshua Gilliland (03:32):
Exactly so, barring the fact that she took
the bar in between the lastseven years, she can't be part
of the name of the law firm,like it just doesn't work that
way.
I believe in all 50 states thatwould not fly.
So but I haven't researched all50 states.
(03:53):
That's just a gut feeling thatthat just doesn't work because
it implies the unauthorizedpractice of law and that's a
no-no.
We don't want people who arenot lawyers putting themselves
out as attorneys.
So so if it, if it's still theend of from season three, it's a
(04:14):
no-no.
If she got her jd and took thebar, cool, but let's see if they
drop that at some point.
Moving on, this is an amazingintro, with murder at the bar
and we have Bullseye come backand there's a killing spree.
(04:35):
There's at least eight peoplekilled and your Honor what
degree of murder would this be?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (04:44):
It's going to be basically second
degree and or first degree,depending if they can get it as
to a terrorist act.
Because of this, the sheeramount of murders that took
place, but in as much as firstdegree, had capital punishment,
which is declaredunconstitutional by New York.
For the most part, seconddegree murder is your top charge
(05:07):
in New York state and therewould be multiple counts because
so many people were killed andbecause of that there would be
other charges that would goalong with the murder in the
second degree.
Joshua Gilliland (05:18):
Yeah, it's brutal.
Foggy might have been anintentional hit.
So if there is a's a mur, wouldthat?
Could that be murder one undernew york?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (05:30):
murder , one in new york, for the most
part was was, was an enhancementdealing with the killing of a
law enforcement officer.
Um so, and it had the thecapital punishment element to it
.
So when one fell, the otherkind of fell by the wayside as
well.
There's other charges that,because of the mass murder
(05:52):
aspect of it that they couldbring, and you know he clearly
would be facing the maximums inNew York, which would be a
lifetime sentence without parole, which is the highest sentence
that a defendant can besentenced to.
Joshua Gilliland (06:10):
California law is different.
So it's interesting to hearthat comparison, because there's
intent here, I believe, for atleast Foggy, the others well.
It then varies because, again,if he's not intentionally going
out for specific individuals,but it's just a mass casualty
(06:31):
event, that's where lawyerswould start trying splitting
hairs.
Foggy is killed and let's justput this out there, there's
spoilers with this.
So please, if you're justrealizing that we're going to
detail now, spoilers ahead.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (06:51):
Foggy is no longer a member of the
firm of Murdoch, page and Nelson.
Joshua Gilliland (06:59):
No, and the actor is just so likable with
the way that the fact thatscreen time is so minimal in
episode one and his death is so,uh, personal and hurtful, with
uh karen page over him trying tokeep him from bleeding out.
(07:20):
Just very well done for animpactful uh opening.
Uh.
But you have matt murdoch onthe rooftop with the killer and
they're in full-blown mutual conum conflict at this point, with
beating the crap out of eachother.
And when foggy dies, you knowthere's the yelling of like why.
(07:45):
And Murdoch pushes Bullseye offthe roof.
How would you categorize that?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (07:57):
With the height of the roof, it was
clear that I think his intentwas to end Bullseye's life.
I was really sorry to see Foggygo too.
He certainly was one of myfavorite characters.
He was one of the most likablelawyers that has ever been on
the small screen and he was agood example of a lawyer that
(08:20):
really wanted to always kind ofdo the right thing.
So it's sad when one of thoserare characters of a lawyer that
is someone likable is gottenrid of.
But clearly Matt was.
There's no doubt in my mind andyou know clearly his lawyer, if
he was ever to be charged withthis type of case, would argue
(08:43):
that he didn't intend to to killhim, that it was in the heat of
the moment, that they were bothfighting, that he was justified
and in defending himself and inand that they slipped and fell
off the roof.
But but it's clear from um youknow later things and his
discussions with kingpin laterthat he intended to to kill
Bullseye.
Joshua Gilliland (09:05):
I think they could knock it down to
manslaughter because of thepassion of the moment,
absolutely, absolutely.
His friend just died.
I think there would also be areal risk of jury nullification,
with a jury going.
We're OK with this.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (09:21):
Yeah, I don't even see a grand jury
indicting him for it.
With as egregious as bullseye'saction were, I would see even a
grand jury saying no true billand not indicting him for any
serious charges there.
Joshua Gilliland (09:37):
Which is not how the system is supposed to
work.
But I could see a DA just goingno, we're not, we're just not,
and that's not how the lawshould be administered, but
that's how it could play out.
So let's get to the victimstatement for the sentencing,
(10:00):
which I thought was fascinatingand well done.
And again, not my area ofpractice.
I'm a new discovery guy.
I do civil litigation Like thisis not my world.
The number of criminalappearances I had as a young
attorney is maybe three, youknow.
So again, just not not mywheelhouse, but your Honor, you
(10:23):
did this for many years as ajudge.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (10:26):
I did and I've had many sentences and
as part of a sentence in NewYork.
It's very, very well defined inour criminal procedure law as
to the steps involved.
The prosecutor gives astatement.
If a victim is going to give astatement.
(10:49):
There were various victimrights acts that were passed
during the governorship ofGovernor Pataki in New York and
the victims have a right to givea statement as well.
And if the victim is going togive a statement, they do have
to give notice to give astatement as well.
And if the victim is going togive a statement, they do have
to give notice that they dointend to make a statement.
And then, after the victim'sstatement, the defense lawyer
(11:12):
has the right to make astatement.
And then the defendant, underour law, also has the right to
make a statement and in fact hasto be asked do you wish to make
a statement?
And they have to affirmativelysay yes or no and then make
their statement.
But they have an absolute rightto make a statement.
(11:33):
There's no requirements withregards to how long any one
statement has to be or how shortany one statement has to be.
You know you certainly can.
As a judge, I would be allowedto run my courtroom and if the
statement got out of, if it wasno longer relevant to the
(11:56):
proceedings or to the actions,you could tell the defendant to
either address the case or I'mgoing to be ending your
statement, and in somesituations that did happen.
Yeah, with victims too, yousometimes have to kind of calm
(12:17):
down, and there were someincredibly passionate statements
that I presided over fromvictims over the years that I
can still recall some of thosestatements.
They're horrific, and after allof those statements are made is
(12:40):
when it is then up to the judgeto pronounce his or her
sentences of the defendant.
But the judge has to listen toall of those statements
beforehand.
And then, of course, there'scertain minimums and maximums
that the law puts forth that thejudge has to take into account
(13:01):
when he or she is sentencing.
But as long as it's a legalsentence, it is done right after
all of those statementsgenerally, and the judge
sometimes makes a statement aswell as part of the sentencing,
as the judge did in this case.
I think he made a veryappropriate statement and he
(13:22):
sentenced consecutively to lifesentences without parole, which
basically means that they wouldbe served one after the other,
after the other.
Some of those might be onappeal, made to run concurrently
, which means at the same time,because generally if it's a
separate act it's supposed to beconsecutive.
(13:44):
If it's not a separate act, soyou can make the argument that
this was all part of one act.
I think for each of the peoplekilled, because there was some
time in between, that it waspurely appropriate to do it
consecutively as separate acts.
So I think that also when it'segregious like this, it's less
(14:06):
chance that an appellate court'sgoing to overturn it.
Joshua Gilliland (14:10):
What did you think about the procedural
depiction of Murdoch's testimonyon having the defendant give a
response and then the judge'sdecision?
How did that play out in yourmind?
For this looked good for acomic book tv show.
(14:31):
Yeah, I, I thought it wasincredibly accurate.
Judge Matthew Sciarrin (14:34):
Actually , you know, clearly, clearly,
one of the showrunners that'sdealing, or the legal advisors,
um, you know, kind of at leastlooked up the procedures in the
CPL and had them all follow theprocedures, because it was very,
very accurate to what I wouldsee on any given day in a New
York court.
Joshua Gilliland (14:54):
Impressive yeah, it's.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (14:57):
It's nice to hear the courtroom
depiction goes like yeah, that,that looked good yeah yeah, I, I
was, you know, because you'relooking for that, as as a lawyer
you're, you're kind of lookingfor where they go off script um
and and they were.
They were very much in linewith the criminal procedure laws
of new york York during thatsentencing.
Joshua Gilliland (15:18):
Good, good, I'm glad to hear that because
not something I've everparticipated in.
So seeing that and hearing thatis a good thing.
So cool, very cool.
Let's take a look at the otherbig legal issue.
(15:38):
Is there's a recall in New YorkCity for the mayor?
Now, as you know, being a partof a Western state or from the
progressive era politics, wehave recall procedures in
California.
We've had two attempts atrecalling a governor.
One was successful, one wascrushed pretty effectively
(16:02):
before it really went far.
And when I saw this was part ofthe story element for the
series, I did a little doubletake because I wasn't expecting
a recall story from New York.
Can you walk us through howthat could actually happen or if
(16:24):
this is accurate or what thesituation is?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (16:28):
New York does not have a recall
procedure for either thegovernor or the mayor and I
don't believe that there's anykind of recall provision for any
elected official in the stateof New York.
(16:56):
Interestingly, a bit of a callto have the governor remove the
mayor and that is a procedure inNew York and it's historically
has been threatened twice and onboth times, when it was very
(17:17):
clear that the mayor was goingto be removed, they did resign.
One of these is the famousJimmy Walker.
There's a movie about it.
It's a.
It's a in 1932 was when ithappened and one was William
O'Dwyer in 1950.
And one was William O'Dwyer in1950.
(17:39):
And there was some talk of EricAdams that the governor might
remove the mayor from officebecause the mayor was accused of
basically taking some bribesfrom Turkish Turkish, the
country of Turkey officials andDonald Trump pardoned him for
(18:00):
that action, so it never went totrial.
He clearly has said that he isnot guilty of any of these
crimes and he's never beenproven guilty of any of these
crimes, but there was a bit of acall to remove him.
The procedure for removal isvery weird.
The procedure for removal isvery weird.
(18:43):
It's basically the governor hasto give her intention in this
case her, because the governorof New York is currently a
female would give her intentionto present a defense to the
governor.
It does not in any way putforth what this procedure would
look like.
Does he go to her office andbeg for mercy?
Is it done in public?
No one knows what thisprocedure is, but he has the
right to present his defense tothe governor, in whatever form
that might be, and then at theend of that suspension the
(19:06):
governor can remove the mayor.
There would not then be anelection.
So again, that was differentfrom what they did in the show,
because in the show they had arecall followed by an election
where the kingpin is elected tobe mayor.
Another spoiler there um, the,the public advocate, which is
the third elected post in newyork city governments.
(19:28):
The first one is the mayor, thesecond one is the controller,
the third one is the publicadvocate.
The public advocate wouldbecome the acting mayor and
would, I believe, finish out theterm.
Or there would be then aspecial election done at the
next November and New York hasranked voting, so that was
(19:51):
adopted a couple of electionsago.
So then it would be an electionfor the mayor thereafter.
Joshua Gilliland (19:57):
So then it would be an election for the
mayor thereafter.
So by way of comparison forCalifornia with the
gubernatorial recalls that wehave the election.
It's two elections at once.
So part one on the ballot isshould there be a recall, yes or
(20:19):
no?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (20:23):
And then the next part is who do you
want?
Joshua Gilliland (20:24):
to be governor the terminator.
Yeah, I want the terminator,and that's how.
And so, when, whenschwarzenegger was elected as
governor to to knock out graydavis, there were people who
voted yes to recall and thenthey voted for the candidate of
their choice, whether it was uhgray davis or uh, the lieutenant
(20:45):
governor, or schwarzeneggerthere were.
There were a bunch of people onthe ballot.
It turned into uh craziness andthat's how schwarzenegger won
and then goes on to win in thenext general election as well.
There was like a brief attemptto recall him and that went
(21:06):
nowhere because Californianswere a little sick of it.
Newsom had a recall effort.
The current governor and theopposition was able to get it on
the ballot for the recall, andthe political strategy for that
(21:26):
recall election was for all thenewsome uh supporters to vote no
on the recall and they saidleave it blank for uh, like an
alternate candidate and no grand.
I voted for.
I did not leave part two blank,uh, uh, but I voted no, just
(21:48):
because I'm not a fan of thezaniness uh that can happen from
recalls.
I don't know if it will happenagain in the history of
California.
Those are the two that we had,unless there's some sneaky one,
but I thought Gray Davis was thefirst governor to get recalled
in California.
So what they depict in the showis different than what I've
(22:12):
experienced as a Californiavoter, because this was
preordained that there's arecall.
As a California voter, becausethis was preordained, that
there's a recall, so like theymet that hoop already and it
makes it sound like it was justa very different procedure At
play For a recall to take place.
So, which brings us to Some ofthe other many issues, is we're
(22:43):
introduced to another vigilantewhose name is white tiger.
This is a marvel character Iactually know very little about,
uh, but again another streetlevel vigilante and they rank
them up there with uh, you know,there's spider-man, you have
punisher, so like those arepower man, iron fist, jessica
jones would be those streetlevel type type heroes that
(23:06):
people interact with more sothan, say, a captain america, uh
, uh, who is more the Avengerslevel threat.
So we see a subway scene wherewe have two individuals.
It looks like they're beatingup a third individual.
The Good Samaritan comes in,he's on the phone, ends the
(23:32):
phone call and intercedes and inthat fight one of the
individuals who was theassailant gets killed by a
subway train turns out those arepolice officers.
Multiple issues here.
First off, did hector have aduty to rescue the victim and
(23:56):
I'll just say there's no a dutyto rescue the victim and I'll
just say there's no general dutyto rescue?
So the answer to that is no.
But we do have the third partydefense of others and your Honor
.
Could you walk us through howthat works in New York and
whether or not this would applyto this character?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (24:16):
The white tiger at that point was
not acting in his white tigeridentity.
He was basically looked likegoing home.
It was in civilian clothes andhe stumbles upon two people
clearly beating a third person.
Up to the point of it lookedlike they might beat him to
(24:41):
death.
He had absolutely no legalobligation possibly a moral
obligation to rescue this otherperson.
Maybe a moral obligation tocall the police.
Maybe a moral obligation tocall the police.
The two police officers thatwere beating this person to
(25:05):
death did not have any markingsthat they were police officers.
They did not at any point saystop, police, or give any
indication that they were policeofficers, and at no point when
the White Tiger got involved didthey say stop, we're police
(25:26):
officers.
So he was, in my mind, somewhatjustified to use physical force
to stop the potential killingof this third party.
He also clearly did not intendfor that other police officer to
(25:47):
get hit by the train.
He was just pushed and he felland he was hit by the train
because the train was coming atthat particular time.
So he would have a very good andI'm sure as we'll see in the
trial justification defense,because he is subsequently
(26:08):
arrested and charged with themurder of a police officer.
That would be murder in thefirst degree and his defense
would be A.
I didn't know that they werepolice officers, I just thought
that they were trying to beat upthis person and I was trying to
protect and save this otherperson's life, and that is one
(26:32):
of the.
He would have been entitled toa justification charge and the
prosecutor would have to provethat he was not justified beyond
the reasonable doubt excellentand great scene I mean fights
well choreographed very, verywell done scene.
(26:54):
Yeah.
Joshua Gilliland (26:55):
Yeah, it looks fantastic and which is again
one of the strongest parts ofthe show is the physical stunts
that they do From behind thescenes footage from season one.
They do a lot of work and thatattention to detail continues
(27:15):
and that's a great thing to see.
So I started thinking about themotion elimination.
So, just backing up on how weget to that scene, uh, matt has
a retired police officer, lastname of cherry, who plays
private eye and doesinvestigations much like, say,
(27:36):
say, a Jessica Jones would bedoing, and Cherry goes out and
finds out some information andduring interviewing the wife,
where the other partner at thelaw firm is talking to the wife,
cherry goes into the bedroomand basically conducts a search
(28:00):
of the client's house and findsa box under the bed that has the
white tiger costume and themagical amulet that gives
additional powers of some kind.
So, first off, just as ifyou're a superhero costume
(28:20):
vigilante, I would hope theywould take better care to not
have the costume just that easyto find.
Like there's no Batcave, likethere's no false wall, it's a
box under the bed that doesn'tseem to be.
Again, if you're going to playcrime fighter, that doesn't seem
(28:47):
to be a good plan because youliterally can just trip over it.
It also raises the issue of hadthe police bothered to search
the guy's house yet?
And this makes me think no,because that wasn't taken into
any custody.
So again, that just seems weird, problematic.
But after that we then jump tothis motion.
(29:07):
First, a client meeting whereMurdoch confronts his client
about this and raises the issueof should the client have told
Murdoch by the way, I'm also avigilante of should the client
have told Murdoch.
By the way, I'm also avigilante.
There are issues with asking aclient hey, do you commit other
(29:29):
crimes?
That could get bad.
But we then jump to a court inchambers, courtroom scene, where
a motion in limine was broughtto suppress this evidence
because the prejudicial effectoutweighs its probative value.
Your Honor, what were?
I want to get your thoughts onthis, but one of the big issues
(29:52):
that I had with it is, if thestate didn't know about it yet,
did Matt commit any ethicalviolations by disclosing it in a
motion in limine that hisclient is also a vigilante,
which is a crime, in order tosuppress it?
So again, I think it'sproblematic.
(30:13):
But what was your reaction tothis?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (30:17):
Yeah, they clearly started the scene
somewhat in the middle.
So we don't know if the statehad already become aware of his
identity Somehow.
I doubt it for the same reasonsthat you just stated.
It does not appear that therewas a search of the apartment,
because clearly, if there was asearch of the apartment, they
might have found this emblem,the apartment, because clearly,
(30:38):
if there was a search of theapartment they might have found
this, this emblem, um, or ifthere was a search, they might
not have known that, what that?
Yeah, I find that hard tobelieve, but that they didn't
know what that costume or emblemmeant and just left it there,
um.
So it's, unless there was, youknow, a, a precursory search of
(30:59):
the apartment thereafter andthat's how they know that he is
the White Tiger.
But I don't think any of thathappened.
So I think Matt figures thatthey would find out soon enough,
so possibly then made themotion in Lemonay, which I also
find to be a bit weird in that Ithink he would have the motion
(31:23):
prepared and ready to file butnot actually do it, because he
is kind of disclosing aprivileged conversation that he
had with his client by bringingthose facts, unless he got the
client's permission to make thatmotion, and none of that is
(31:44):
before us.
So I think that it was justsome poor writing in that they
didn't really consider all ofthose legal issues and they had
him make the motion.
But yeah, there were someethical problems with regards to
Sam, because he clearly isdisclosing something that he
(32:06):
learned in his conversationswith his client and those
conversations are privileged andit's his client's privilege.
It's not his privilege, so hewould not have the right to
disclose that.
Joshua Gilliland (32:20):
It's.
Yeah, it was just this ethicalminefield that is created by
this motion and eliminate, tosuppress that evidence.
And if it's come out again, ifit's come out in the press,
there are new issues on top ofthat and we now have the
Spider-Man no Way Home scenario,but I don't think that's
(32:43):
happened yet.
I don't think this is publicinformation.
So the fact that a motioneliminated is brought seems
ethically problematic.
It's theoretical that it couldhave been on an exhibit list and
(33:04):
that's why murdoch brought theum motion and lemonade, but this
entire again we come in in themiddle of it and it's just weird
.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (33:15):
Uh, I mean, it's clearly it was a
secret identity, because if, ifit wasn't a secret identity and
and if it was common knowledgethat this person was the white
tiger, it would have been allover the press.
The DA would be kind ofinvolved in the issue of it
(33:35):
being the white tiger.
So it clearly is a secretidentity and as such, it would
be clearly privileged.
So, yeah, I think either Mattmade a ethical blunder or it was
just not something that thewriters took into consideration.
Joshua Gilliland (33:56):
I also wonder if, having a client who's a
vigilante and the prosecution'strying to bring that out, if it
raises the flag of bad characterevidence now and at least in
California and in federal courts, you know you're not supposed
(34:17):
to bring evidence of badcharacter because it's
prohibited.
On the flip side, if theopposing party brings out
evidence of good character, thenthe bad character evidence can
be used to rebut that.
Uh, have evidence that couldshow that there was conduct that
(34:48):
was well, it's just as.
That's just how he is.
Uh, you know he he fights, youknow he beats people up.
Therefore, you know he's guiltyof beating these people up like
it's.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (34:56):
That's why bad character evidence is
not allowed to come in which iswhat his in limine motion was,
was was it was it was to.
It was to prohibit the theprosecution from using, uh,
evidence of prior bad acts.
And and new york is, um, unlikemost states, it has no code of
(35:19):
evidence um, they, they havecreated, uh, in recent vintage,
what is New York's guide toevidence, which is created by
the Court of Appeals and otherpeople that sit on this guide
board, and it's a statement ofwhat the evidence is based on,
the case law, and it's almosttaken the position of a code to
(35:46):
some extent.
But the law in New York dealingwith prior bad acts is from a
case it's called the Peopleversus Molyneux, so it's called
the Molyneux exception to priorbad acts coming in.
And there are certain thingswhich you can make an argument
for allowing these prior badacts into evidence.
(36:09):
If they show certain thingsmotive, if they show opportunity
, intent, preparation for somecommon scheme or plan, knowledge
, the identity.
If these prior bad acts are andhere's where I think they might
have been allowed in to showthe identity of him as the white
(36:31):
tiger and that this was part ofhis vigilantism, and to show
his identity as the white tiger,maybe, arguably, a prosecutor
would argue that that's why wehave to allow in these prior bad
acts if they are even bad actsIs acting as a vigilante a bad
(36:54):
act, arguably because you don'thave the right to do some of the
things that you're doing.
But so you know it was not a badtactical decision to get a
ruling on prohibiting.
But you know it goes back to Ithink it was a little bit
premature to make that motion.
(37:14):
The way a Molyneux motionusually would come before me is
the prosecutor would make themotion that we want to use these
prior bad acts because of theygo to show motive, they go to
show intent, whatever it is, andthen the defense would say that
the probative value is so faroutweighed by the prejudice it's
(37:36):
going to show against my client, which is the exact words that
Matt used.
And those are the legal wordsthat the judge would consider.
And I was happy to see that thejudge, I think, made the
correct legal ruling in thiscase.
I didn't think he was.
And after that argument is madeis when the court would rule.
(37:57):
And then, if the defendant wereto possibly present a defense
which in some way makes thoseprior bad acts relevant again,
it's possible that the courtcould allow the prosecutor in
their rebuttal case to bring inthose prior bad acts, and that's
usually the way it would comebefore the jury.
Joshua Gilliland (38:21):
Yeah, there's thank you for that explanation
because there's a connection.
Yeah, there's thank you forthat explanation because there's
a connection between prior badacts and prejudicial effect
versus probative value, and Iwould think you would actually
make both arguments in order fora belt and suspenders.
But again, it's a highlyproblematic scene.
(38:43):
Highly problematic scene.
Uh, I do think the right resultis made, reached by the judge.
Uh, because this does look likethe, the da is just trying to,
you know, pile it on and in thisworld, which is said a couple
years in the future.
So I think it's you know, sincethey make reference that fisk
(39:04):
was going to be the 112th mayor.
Uh, also, the you know, andthey're on 110 right now.
Uh, the effects of, uh, captainamerica, brave new world.
I think that election was 2028,uh, so maybe 2024 in mcu, but I
think it's 2028 after InfinityWar.
(39:26):
And how would people viewvigilantes in that world where,
you know you had half thepopulation disappear, turn into
dust and then come back and thesurvivors lived for five years
in that world, from 2017 to 2022, I think is their timing of of,
(39:52):
uh, the blip.
So people might be okay withvigilantes and superheroes,
because there's been alieninvasions more than one.
Uh, they might have not have aproblem with the avengers at
this point in time because ofwhat happened.
On the flip side, it dependswhat the vigilante is doing like
(40:14):
.
If people are team punisher,that's.
That's not a good place to befrom a civil society, um.
But if there's rampant crimeand you have again vigilantes
tipping the balance so peoplefeel safe, they might be okay
with it and it might not be badcharacter in somebody's eyes.
So bring that up.
(40:35):
If the vigilante is viewed aspopular could backfire from a
prosecutorial point of view.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (40:45):
And clearly because they did do a
lot of scenes with the man onthe street as part of the
campaign coverage, where you hada lot of people saying that the
reason that they were votingfor the kingpin was because of
the rampant crime and that theonly people doing anything about
(41:06):
it was the vigilantes and thepeople in the suits and that the
cops were unable to take careof this.
So you could very well have alarge jury pool that is not
anti-vigilante and I'm sure whenthey do jury selection, that
(41:26):
would be part of the voir direthat Matt would engage in is,
even though he got thisfavorable ruling, he would know
that it's still possible thatsomewhere down the line maybe
the press or someone else isgoing to make the connection
that this is the white tiger.
So one of the things I want tofind in my jury selection, or
(41:51):
jurors that are somewhatsympathetic towards the
vigilantes, if in fact it comesout that the person that's being
accused of these crimes is infact a vigilante, yeah, it'd be
like if one of the jurors saidlike yeah, a vigilante saved me.
Joshua Gilliland (42:06):
Okay, which vigilante saved you, the white
tiger?
We thank you for your excuse.
Bye, thanks, as opposed toagain.
Yeah, spider-man saved me, cool.
Okay, thank you for yourservice, but there could be a
(42:28):
category where it's on the line,but I would think the
prosecution would want no onewho's been saved by a vigilante
or any superhero.
Almost I would not want on on myjury if I'm the prosecutor in
this kind of case which could bereally hard because of the
battle of new york with loki andthe avengers, because a lot of
(42:54):
people would qualify for thatand a lot of uh that they
survived it.
Uh to uh.
You know the battle in uhinfinity war uh that takes place
in new york by dr strange'shouse.
So I mean, and this is a worldwhere there's been lots of
(43:14):
activity in new york with heroes, so that's going to be the jury
questionnaire might be thesimple way to knock that out
before even getting to void ear,but it's a fascinating
discussion to think about howthat trial could look.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (43:33):
You almost have every citizen of New
York in the Marvel universeexperiencing some form of
post-traumatic stress at thispoint, I would think yeah,
everyone's going to be afraid ofloud noises because any flash
of light in the sky would wouldfreak them out.
Joshua Gilliland (43:48):
Especially, like the United States has been
lucky that the number of actualbattles that have taken place on
our soil it's limited to theCivil War, the civil war 9-11
(44:12):
and a couple weird incursionsduring world war ii with a.
I know the balloon attack.
You know that set some trees onon fire in oregon, like there's
there's not a lot of right.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (44:21):
I think there was a japanese sub
that took a couple of shots onthe West Coast and there was a
U-boat or two off of Long Island.
But yes, clearly the UnitedStates has been very lucky that
it has very large oceans on bothsides.
With September 11th, you know,you did have a hyper tense
(44:53):
population for a very long timebecause you know we had we had
military planes flying over forweeks and we didn't have the
usual commercial planes becausethey were all grounded at that
point.
So the military planes whenthey went over you, it was a
very foreign experience for alot of New Yorkers.
(45:17):
And you know so really, if youup that by the scale of the MC
universe happenings in New York,by the scale of the mc universe
happenings in in new york, youwould have a, a populace that is
pretty high strung.
Joshua Gilliland (45:29):
Yeah, because you think about the.
You know the events of theother daredevil series or the
defenders it's like.
So there are, there's a ninjacult running around, like people
are going to notice that stuffand it's going to be in
collective memory, um, you knowwhether it's 20 years in the
past or 10 or 5, uh, or lastweek, like people are going to
(45:54):
be on their toes, uh, aboutthose type of events.
So, uh, again, jury selectioncould get weird, uh, but if
you're at the point where no onein new york can sit on the jury
because everyone's been saved,that again it can tip the other
direction.
You know they.
They highlight in, uh, you knowthe hawkeye series, that after
(46:17):
the initial battle of new yorkthere were a lot of people who
were upset at the avengers.
You know blame the people whosaved you.
But by the time of the Hawkeyeseries, you know there's the
Rogers musical.
People have swung the other way, uh.
So, again, if there's more thanone musical on Broadway about
superheroes, you might have aproblem, problem in finding a
(46:42):
jury's pool that can meeteveryone's needs.
So with that we get.
You know, the victim of thesubway attack is hard to find
and the police officers trackhim down and Matt figures out
where the guy is as well.
(47:03):
Through a series of events,matt gets to him first and Matt,
as Matt Murdock gets the guyout of the apartment.
Cherry is going to pick him upand Matt is waiting for the two,
I'm going to say, corruptpolice officers.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (47:22):
Yeah, I think that if you have any
doubt as to whether or not thepolice officers were justified
in beating this person on thesubway station when the white
tiger got involved, that doubtis clearly taken away from you
with regards to this scene,because they were clearly going
(47:42):
to finish the job and get rid ofthis person who they failed to
get rid of at the subway station, and you know, really it was a
hit job and they clearly aredirty cops.
Joshua Gilliland (48:00):
Which is frustrating for police officers
who watch this and go like guys,no, no, we don't have Punisher
tattoos.
No, now, granted, matt can'tsee I don't know if he can sense
that there's a Punisher tattooon the corrupt officer's wrist
(48:20):
was uh troubling.
Um, it also highlights howmarvel comics did not like
seeing police officers startputting punisher logos on, you
know, tops of police cars.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (48:33):
Uh, they didn't like that and they
wrote it into stories about thepunisher not liking it and I
will not comment on the amountof police officers that I know
that have punisher decals on ontheir vehicles I'm going to just
say not okay, uh, not okay.
Joshua Gilliland (48:53):
That said, you know, my mom was a paramedic,
grew up with lots of policeofficers as, uh, family friends,
along with firefighters.
So not okay firefighters, sonot okay.
That said, so we have thisfight that takes place and they
rough up murdoch and thenthey're going to execute him on
(49:14):
his knees, gun to his head, andhe says please don't do this.
And there's debate if he'stalking to the corrupt police
officers or to himself, becausewe end with an incredible fight
scene where he beats the snotout of those two.
He gets beat up too.
(49:36):
So there's his blood at thescene.
Your honor, what's yourthoughts on this being
self-defense?
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (49:46):
First off, I don't think there's a
character in the Marvel Universethat gets beat up as badly or
as much as Matt Murdock.
He really really gets beat up alot and not just like a little
bit, but I'm always amazed thathe can come back after all of
these beatings.
(50:07):
He clearly again would have ajustification defense.
They were clearly trying tokill him so he would put forth a
defense that he was justifiedin doing what he did.
And again, if he's ever triedand if the series goes along
(50:27):
with some of the comic books, Ithink he does get tried under
the King, in the Kingpinadministration.
There's also, you know, spoileralert that there there is a,
there's a series where hebecomes the DA under the Kingpin
administration.
So it's curious to see whichway they're going to go, because
(50:48):
they're clearly getting theirsource materials from a couple
of really really good comicseries of the Daredevil.
But he would again theprosecutor would have to prove
that he was not justified totake the actions that he did
beyond a reasonable doubt beforethey would be allowed to
consider whether or not he wasguilty of the crimes that he's
(51:11):
alleged to to have done yeah,thank you.
Joshua Gilliland (51:17):
It's a it's very well done.
I mean, it's a very well donefight.
I saw one person on, I think,on tiktok go.
Did murdoch kill those guys?
I don't think so, becausethat's very not matt murdoch.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (51:30):
Yeah he, which is why you know when,
when he um tosses bullseye, oryou know off the roof core, matt
Murdock is a strugglingCatholic.
You know and you know all thedaredevil imagery and and and
(51:54):
and it's it's a very you knowreligious undertones to to
daredevil.
You know he is very muchstruggles with the actions that
he takes.
There's always a priestinvolved in all the series where
(52:19):
he either goes for confessionor for support.
You know he really is a goodmoral Catholic who really kind
of understands you knowpunishment and virtue and you
know it's it's a it's got a lotof religious undertones to it
and it's not an overly religiousshow.
But but you clearly sense, uhyeah, that that that struggling
(52:40):
irish catholic um, kind of kindof being in matt murdoch yeah
it's.
Joshua Gilliland (52:46):
You have him going and hanging out by a
church hearing the singingthat's taking place inside and
his priest that he confided in,that knew he was Daredevil was
killed.
So there's probably guilt overthat, which is why he's not
(53:07):
attending a service.
Uh, again, I'm guessing at that, but we don't see him go in
where you know he would go talkto his priest in you know the
earlier series, uh, you know,with this character.
So, again, a lot to unpack, butagain it is fascinating and
(53:27):
I've briefly discussed this withmy pastor, who enjoys it
immensely as well, uh, as alutheran, which is not
catholicism, but we have somevery similar uh, scriptures and
doctrine that we follow.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (53:43):
So, uh , but we don't listen yeah right
, luther's problem was was thatthe catholic church got away
from itself, um, through so manyvarious things that it was
doing, um, you know, with, withthe most being that the selling
of, of dispensations for thatguilt.
Um, so you know the the cathCatholic Church was capitalizing
(54:06):
on Catholic guilt by saying, ifyou pay us this amount of money
, we can, you know, cut yourtime in purgatory.
Joshua Gilliland (54:15):
And.
Judge Matthew Sciarrino (54:15):
Martin Luther clearly didn't think
because he was a very devoutCatholic himself that he didn't
think that the Catholic Churchwas doing the right thing by
doing all these things.
But you know, catholic guilt isdefinitely a theme.
Um in daredevil absolutely, andit's.
It's fascinating havingquestions of faith and an action
(54:37):
adventure superhero story yeah,yeah and and great questions of
lore, and I expect many more asthe series continues.
Joshua Gilliland (54:47):
Part of the reason why I really enjoy it,
because I enjoy both immensely,and being able to see them
depicted with thoughtfulness isa rewarding watching experience.
So with that, we will continueour analysis of Daredevil Born
again.
We will continue our analysisof Daredevil Born again.
For those who are attendingWonderCon, I can say that we
(55:09):
will be there with a panel.
I will not say any more untilwe can release the schedule,
which Comic-Con Internationalwill do by March 14th.
So stay tuned for more aboutwhat we will be presenting at
WonderCon in Anaheim, california.
(55:29):
So, everyone, thank you fortuning in.
Wherever you are, stay safe,stay healthy and stay geeky,
take care.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.