July 30, 2025 • 50 mins
Recorded Live at San Diego Comic Con on July 25, 2025!
Join lawyers and judges for their legal review of Daredevil Born Again! Can Bullseye sue Daredevil for injuries he sustained for being thrown off the top of a building? Can Nelson, Murdock and Page practice law when they have a non-lawyer equity owner? Does Matt Murdock understand how the attorney client privilege works? Was Hector Ayala’s acquittal jury nullification? What is the legal significance of Red Hook Port being a free port? Just how is Wilson Fisk NOT in prison? Join our panel featuring Circuit Judge John B. Owens, Magistrate Judge Steve Chu, Judge Carol Najera, Judge Danna Nicholas, Micheal Skeen, and Katrina Wraight. Moderated by Kate Bridal. Presented by The Legal Geeks. Room: 25ABC
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.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hello, my name is Joshua Gilliland and I am one of
the founding attorneys of theLegal Geeks.
I love going to San DiegoComic-Con.
We started going in 2015, andthe last decade's been awesome.
The following recording is fromour Daredevil Born Again panel,
recorded live on July 25, 2025.
(00:21):
Live on July 25th 2025.
This panel was a ton of fun,and here's a wild card.
I'm not on it.
This is the first time I didn'tmoderate a panel at San Diego
(00:41):
Comic-Con and I did it for asimple reason I wanted to be
sure another person had a chanceto be on a legal panel, because
we have a bunch of lawyers andjudges that want to participate.
Kate Bridal moderated and did agreat job, so now let's tune in
and check out our DaredevilBorn Again panel from San Diego
Comic-Con 2025.
I think you can come on andwe're right next door 1026.
(01:05):
So we're so happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Thanks for our fearless leader, josh Gilliland,
and for the rest of me, themoderator himself, which I'm
very honored by.
So we've got a fantastic panel.
A little bit about me I am aformer attorney.
I am also an actress, writerand content creator.
I'm making that stone for it.
My final page that's my finalpage is a popular sketch series
(01:52):
on TikTok and Instagram, meetingwith Lester, where I pretend to
be in a relationship with himand Lester.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
With that said.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
I do a lot of things.
Check it out, part A, part B.
I also have a podcast calledNight is Ruined where I host
night everyday objects, people,events and facts about their
dark history, or just dark factsabout them.
So, if you like the sound ofthat come see me after I've got
speakers.
All right, so we will starthere with Judge Chu, if you
(02:21):
would introduce yourself.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
So, okay, I don't know if my piece is out here so
I can embarrass myself.
So I'm a longtime member of theDeacon Geeks.
I've been on many panels herebefore.
Who here has been to our panelsbefore?
So I started off as an attorney.
I was sworn in two years ago tobecome a federal judge, so I'm
(02:45):
glad that I'm still here and Ithink that all the things I do
just maybe the only thing I dothat my kids think is sordid,
just sordid.
Yeah, judge O'Hara.
Hi, dan.
Speaker 5 (03:04):
Hi folks, I'm Judge Carol Lindera.
I was a prosecutor for threeyears before I came on the bench
and been a judge for ten yearsin the hub city of Compton.
I think I've been a legal geekabout that long too.
It's just a pleasure to be hereand see all you guys Some of
(03:25):
you I recognize.
Hi all.
Speaker 6 (03:29):
Hi, I'm Dana Nicholas and I was sworn in on the bench
in the same year, in 2023.
Prior to that, I was anattorney at the city, so I love
being part of Legal Geeks and sohopefully I get to see you all
again.
We've done some work here atComic-Con and at WonderCon and
ComicFest.
Speaker 7 (03:51):
So this is going to be great.
Hi, I'm Michael Skeen.
I'm an attorney practicing inSan Francisco.
This is my first panel with theLeague of Geeks and very happy
to be here.
Please be gentle with thequestions.
It's my first time and, yeah,lover of everything, geek and
happy to be here.
Please be gentle with thequestions.
It's my first time and, yeah,lover of everything geek and
happy to be here.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Hi everyone, I'm Katrina.
I'm an associate attorney atBest Best Krieger.
I practice environmental law.
This is maybe my third orfourth Eagle Geeks panel, so I'm
happy to be back.
Speaker 8 (04:23):
third or fourth legal geeks panel, so I'm happy to be
back and I'm john owens.
I'm a judge on the ninthcircuit court of appeals
apparently I'm jacqueline'sfather and, uh, the chamber's
(04:44):
here in San Diego, and I readDaredevil as a kid, and so I
still have the box upstairs withthe Death of Elektra still in
the box, not selling it, notselling it.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Yeah, so don't ask, but none of the guys.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
All right, so let's kick things off with Judge Chu
telling us about Goldstein andand whether he was sued for his
injuries when he ran for theblock.
This is actually one nuancedquestion that one might think.
So Bullseye, of course he's theJoker to Jared-O's, batman, the
Lex Luthor to Superman.
I mean, he is the arch-enemy Inthe comics.
The games would say that in hishands he thinks he's a deadly
black monster.
He really is the arch enemy Inthe comics.
(05:24):
The comics would say that inhis hands he thinks he's a
deadly weapon.
So he really is just absolutelydeadly and he has inflicted
more damage on Daryl's life thananyone.
He's Benjamin Poindexter in theTV show or Lester in the comics
.
Interesting are the twocharacterizations that diverged.
You know the comics version.
(05:44):
He's got all sorts of possiblehistories but in the TV show
he's actually a federal agent,which is very.
We won't get too far into that,but it's going to be an
interesting dynamic to hischaracterization.
So, as I said, he's done moredamage to Gerard than anyone
else.
Jojo, which meant referenceGerard 181, which is a turning
(06:05):
point for many people who aregoing through the 80s because it
saw the death of Electra.
I don't think I'm spoiling that, but he has killed Electra.
He has killed Karen Page in theGuardian Devil Room for Kevin
Smith.
He also killed the Adonivan inwhat was sort of a dream
sequence under Brian Aquaman ashis wife again, another
(06:28):
fantastic comic book.
But if anyone sort of reallycould be, or maybe should be, if
you believe that villainsshould be put away forever or
killed or whatnot, bullseyewould probably be a poster child
.
But we're not asking thatquestion.
We're actually asking whenBullseye sees Daredevil for
(06:49):
beating him up repeatedly and inthis case, in the opening
sequence of the Netflix show,daredevil defeats Bullseye after
seeing Claudia Nelson's longtime best friend, die in a
sensitive heartbeat and he seesthe body die, he beats Bullseye
(07:09):
and throws him off the top ofthe building.
So can Bullseye sue Dariel forthose injuries?
Can I get a show of hands whothinks yes, okay, alright.
So Duke, nuanced question hereCan he sue?
Yes, he can sue Will he winthat might be a little bit
(07:31):
different.
But it also may be a closerquestion than one may believe If
we continue onward.
So let's say he sued DarylDaryl.
He said well, it's all defense,he was attacking me.
If you watch the sequence inthe TV show, he wasn't really
attacking Daryl, he was actuallygoing after Fonny and then he
kills 18 people.
(07:51):
So you're not defendingyourself, you're not defending
yourself, but heroes are alwaysdefending others.
That's sort of the paradigm ofbeing a hero you defend others
before yourself.
Would that work Sometimes?
And the answer is sometimesit's not always seeming, but it
can happen.
(08:12):
Now, in terms of bullseye suing,there are cases where people
who are up to criminal activity,for example robbing someone in
their house and they slip on theceiling and fall and get hurt
they can actually sue thehomeowner for not maintaining
their house in a safe way.
It seems preposterous, but ifyou said, well, they were in the
(08:34):
middle of a criminal act thatwould usually be thrown out
under 403 because it's tooprejudicial.
So can he sue?
Yes, there are some cases wherepeople have won lawsuits like
this.
I think it would be unlikelyhere because there are a lot of
damaging facts, but the law isone of the nuance and it is a
(08:54):
possible one.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
It depends.
The eternal lawyer answer itdepends.
All right, Mike, tell us aboutthe significance of Red Hook as
a free court.
Sure so Red.
Speaker 7 (09:04):
Hook.
So the grand scheme of theFisks is to operate much of
their criminal empire throughRed Hook.
So the grand scheme of theFisks is to operate much of
their criminal empire throughRed Hook, which Matt and Karen
learn is a free port.
When they look in through thecharter, they also realize that
in the charter, according to thecharter, all federal, all state
, all local laws are exempt.
So does a free port really like, say, Tortuga from the Pirates
of the Caribbean?
Movies where anything goesShort answer no.
(09:29):
So free ports do exist in theworld.
There's many throughout theUnited States.
Although actually free port'san antiquated term, they're now
considered foreign trade zonesand they are governed by the
federal government.
You might say, well, there'sthat charter, but really the
courts would not give anyrespect to that because it was
done by the state and the statecan't overrule federal law and
(09:51):
really they can't exemptanything unless the legislatures
come in and pass laws providingexemptions, which very unlikely
that that happened.
And so, yeah, foreign tradezones are covered by 19 USC
Section 81A through U, andbasically 81C of that says that
all merchandise that's broughtinto a foreign trade zone
(10:13):
basically no customs laws apply,which means when merchandise
comes in there's no tariffs,there's no taxes, no duties,
other types of fees, but allother laws apply.
And although being exempt fromcustoms laws in a foreign trade
zone sounds really exciting,really, the second that the
merchandise leaves the foreigntrade zone and goes into the
(10:33):
United States, then all thosecustoms tariffs, import fees
then come into play and theyhave to get paid before they can
actually leave Red Hook.
So, like Vanessa Fisk, forexample, she has a bunch of art
in Red Hook and when she has tosell that, actually retail
activities specificallyprohibited in foreign trade
zones, and so the art needs toget moved, would probably move
(10:55):
to her gallery, in which caseshe'd have to pay any fees
related to that.
So one question is why wouldyou use foreign trade zone?
It's really basically to eitherdefer the cost of import fees
or maybe try and even lower them.
It's really about managingimport fees, so nothing that
exciting.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Another thing that prevents the fish from engaging
in any sort of nefariousactivities.
Speaker 7 (11:15):
But if they do engage in criminal activities,
hopefully they get caught anddefinitely go to prison, at
least until the next season.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Yes, All right, just to back to you.
So I think I'm a sort ofbusiness with Karen Page,
because she always says she'sgoing to cry and I worry that
I'm defending her at all times.
But Nelson and Murdoch did so.
Let's see how they do that witha question or two.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
So this is an interesting question.
It really depends on a coupleof things.
What is a parent she's?
Speaker 2 (11:45):
not a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
She's typically going to have to be licensed and pass
all these standards before youcan be an attorney.
But she's not a lawyer, she's asecretary.
She's a paralegal,paralegalsalegal is above
secretary.
They're actually training andlicensed for that as well.
(12:08):
She's an investigator, privateinvestigator, beyond the license
process as well.
The reason the thing we'relooking at is a bit of a sliding
scale the higher up you get,the more regulation there is,
the more you have to do training, laws to pass for credentials
and the more authority you haveto measure the sort of
(12:31):
partnerships whereby you can runa business and earn money.
There are a lot of regulations.
If we look at the how thingsare handled in real life,
typically, the rule is going tobe that if you were, if you were
to have an ownership interestin a law firm, you probably
should be a lawyer, becausethat's what most people think.
Now one question does anyonethink any state in the country
(12:54):
has actually allowed non-lawyersto become an owner in a law
firm?
Who says yes?
Can anyone guess the state?
Arizona?
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Very good, arizona needs to capitalize, whether
that's good or bad.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
it's time to tell.
We've seen regulations relaxwhere accounting firms are now
starting to get into thebusiness of law.
Very briefly, it's a nuancedargument that the reason people
(13:28):
say that non-owners should beallowed to own law firms that
have ownership interests isbecause they can then bring down
the cost of legal services andmake it cheaper for people.
If people don't always have tohire the $1,000 an hour lawyer
if they're hiring someone loweron the phone call, we can
(13:49):
deliver those services to peoplewho need them more at a lesser
rate.
On the other side, though, iswell, if we are letting assorted
people practice law without alicense, how do we regulate that
?
And isn't there a danger ofabuse?
Or perhaps you is not highenough or practices things like
(14:10):
that?
So it does depend, but not onArizona anymore.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Yeah, it depends on every region.
So Michael Matt does a lot ofthings which he probably doesn't
disbar, but among those thingsshould be a question of
understanding of attorney-clientpurpose.
So let's talk about it.
Speaker 7 (14:31):
Sure.
So attorney-client privilegeprotects communications between
the attorney and the client.
The goal of it is to create,allow open and honest
communications between theattorney and client so the
attorney can provide the bestadvice possible.
It never expires and really themain benefit of this is for the
client, which makes sense sincethey're providing a lot of
confidential information theywould want that protected.
(14:51):
Going hand-in-hand with theattorney-client privilege is a
duty of confidentiality thatstate bars impose on members of
the bar.
So Daredevil is in New York,and so Rule 1.6 of the New York
Rules of Professional Conductprecludes an attorney from
knowingly revealing confidentialinformation unless the client
gives informed consent,disclosure is impliedly
(15:11):
authorized and is reasonableunder certain circumstances or
falls under certain exceptionslisted under 1.6b, but none of
which apply in this case.
So Matt revealed in open courtthat Hector Ayala is the white
tiger.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
So Matt revealed in open court that Hector Ayala is
the white tiger.
Speaker 7 (15:27):
So did he breach his duty of confidentiality when he
did that?
Well, the information wasprotected by the duty of
confidentiality and he did notgive his prior consent.
So, yeah, Matt did violate theduty of confidentiality.
The other thing going on wasthat, prior to the trial, Matt
filed what's called a motion inlimine, and the motion in limine
it's a pretrial motion.
A party files to excludeevidence from the trial.
Guess what was excluded fromthe trial?
(15:49):
Any evidence about Hector Ayalbeing the White Tiger.
So, basically, when Mattreveals this in open court, he
manages to stop his client, theprosecution and the judge which
from a dumpster fire perspectiveis actually pretty impressive
to fail that spectacular testNot if you're being represented
(16:09):
by that person.
So the question is did he actreasonably under the
circumstances?
He tried to argue that for theprosecution Officer Powell
testified credibly.
His star witness had changedhis story on the stand and his
client didn't want to beconvicted, so he needed to hail
Mary.
So Hector ultimately did agreeto the disclosure after the fact
, but we'll just pretend thatdidn't want to be convicted.
So he needed to hail Mary.
So Hector ultimately did agreeto disclosure after the fact,
but you know, we'll just pretendthat didn't happen.
What would the State Bar do?
(16:30):
The State Bar would still findthat that was not reasonable,
and the reason why is becausethe motion of limine said you
can't talk about this.
And so even if, no matter whatreason was, he could try and
argue, he wouldn't get very far.
And the sad thing is that ifhe'd done things a little bit
differently, he actually couldhave done everything he wanted
to do and not gotten in trouble.
What he should have done wasasked for a recess and got
(16:51):
consent from the client and thenrequested a hearing outside of
the jury with the judge and makehis case, and hopefully the
judge would allow it, and thenMatt could just basically
proceed as he normally did.
Otherwise Matt risks beingdisciplined by the bar and kind
of contempt by the judge.
But, you know.
On the other hand, in thecomics, I believe, Matt's been
disbarred at least twice, maybemore so not an unfamiliar
(17:12):
situation to him, but still nota position you want to be in.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
It keeps coming back.
Speaker 6 (17:21):
So, Judge Nicholas, talk to us about this very
casual list of crimes you'reinvolved in.
You know, before I do that Ihave to say that I'm sort of
disappointed and jealous ofJudge Chu and Judge Owens.
Yet again, their families arehappy about the me and proud
about the me, and my kids are inthe back hiding.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
What about them and my kids are in the back hiding,
or no?
Oh no, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6 (17:54):
So you know, we all know, what a bank robbery is.
Right, you go in, you take somestuff that doesn't belong to
you.
It's kind of like when you'rereaching your mom's purse to get
some extra change because youknow she's got something.
But what other crimes do youthink might be going on there?
Speaker 2 (18:13):
And don't cheat, don't look at my slide.
What other?
Speaker 6 (18:16):
things.
Anybody, any hands, anyonegoing to be brave?
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I'm sure there are people who are brave.
Are we talking about sex, lives, sex?
Speaker 6 (18:27):
actions or just the general scene.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
In I mean possession of a firearm, breaking and
entering stuff like that.
Excellent, excellent.
Speaker 6 (18:38):
And Matt can do things blind.
I am blind, but there are a lotof crimes that you have to take
into consideration.
So under 18 USC 2113, bankrobbery anyone who uses, by
force or violence orintimidation, takes or attempts
to take anything from anotherwhile they're in a bank or a
(19:01):
credit union ends up being abank robber.
One of my favorite lines fromthe episode deals with another
crime, which is the felonymurder rule.
So how many of you rememberMatt who's sitting there and
he's like, hey, you don't wannakill anybody, because then that
gets you 15 to 25, right on topof everything.
(19:21):
And felony murder under section125.25 in California amounts
basically to murder in thesecond degree.
So if you kill anyone whileyou're committing a felony, bam,
there you go, you got yourfelony murder.
And then also when you receiveproperty or conspiracy.
(19:42):
So you might think, oh, I'mgoing to have conspiracy to
commit a murder or commit afelony.
In the episode we see that theyhave a plant inside the bank
who's kind of tipping them offand that would constitute a
conspirator.
Oddly enough impersonatingofficers when they're making
their escape.
They dress like New York policeofficers.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Under California law that would be a only therapist
in New York City.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Was she obligated to reportsuspected criminal activity for
a mistress?
Speaker 4 (20:35):
So good question.
There we're getting a privilegeissue which, as judges know,
can be a very thorny and nuancedarea.
So, for instance, we have theattorney-client privilege that
we probably all know about.
We see it in the VCT,physician-patient privilege,
which we usually call formedical conditions.
But what about thetherapist-patient privilege?
(20:58):
Would that typically preventpre-protect communications
between the patient and thetherapist?
So I think I see some nodding.
Yes, that is a privilege, butwhat if the patient reveals to
the therapist that they arecontemplating criminal activity?
They're thinking like oh, I maynot be a good I may rob someone,
(21:20):
I may want to hurt somebody Atthat point, is the therapist
obligated to report that?
Who thinks yes, no, a littleover half, who says no, yes, oh,
ok, so this is a controversialarea of law so we can move
forward a little bit.
But I think one of thedifferent characterizations is
(21:44):
the topic of the movie movie orthe TV show.
But there's a real worldexample, very famous case out of
California called Tarasov,where a UC Berkeley student
named Tatiana Tarasov was killedby someone who was stalking her
and was also seeing a therapistwhere he reported that he was
teaching a parking permit.
In that case the therapistactually did contact some of the
(22:05):
campus police, the campussecurity, and they retained the
individual for a little whilebut they didn't hear the
elucidation so they let him goand a few weeks later,
tragically, he killed the staffat a terrace hall.
After that that case went allthe way up to the California
Supreme Court and it was a verydicey issue but ultimately the
California Supreme Court said soagain the question does a
(22:29):
therapist?
Is a therapist obligated toreport when a patient is
contemplating criminal activity?
The California Supreme Courtsaid yes.
So a lot of therapists wereworried, saying well, hey, how
are we going to have thesetechnical relationships now?
And the court said we arecarving out a narrow exception.
If someone else is in danger,credibly you've got to report
that.
So in the years since Parisoffering, the professionals in
(22:53):
Washington are closely worriedbecause we've brought them in.
But it has now become prettymuch the law of the land.
Many states have followedCalifornia, including New York,
in providing that if a patientis contributing to a therapist,
they report that the therapisthas to in turn also report that.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Thank you for that.
All right, so, Judge McCarron,was the criminalization of the
acquittal jury notification.
Tell us all about it.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
Before I do, I'm going to tell my kids and I'm
going to embarrass them, solet's talk.
Jury notification.
Tell us all about it Before.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
I do I'm going to tell my kids and I'm going to
embarrass them.
So now it's starting to be easy.
Speaker 5 (23:27):
But let's talk jury notification.
Let me ask you how many folksin the audience were after
seeing Daredevil, seeing theacquittal of Petra Yala.
I'm surprised by that number.
Raise your hands.
Speaker 6 (23:40):
Come on, let's see.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
I'm surprised, okay.
Okay, I'm going to talk alittle bit about what it means
when a jury comes back with averdict that people think maybe
is in defiance of the law.
And, specifically, there's abig question whether or not, in
this case, the verdict that thejurors rendered in that case in
the case of Hector O'Hara was infact a true legal verdict.
(24:06):
Jury notification, as definedby New York, is when a jury
acquits a defendant despiteevidence proving guilt, based on
the jury's belief that the lawis unjust or improperly applied.
When the facts seem to allowfor no other conclusion but
guilt and the jury comes backnot guilty, that is considered
(24:30):
jury nullification.
Let's move to the next slideNow.
There are many attempts tocircumvent this that are built
into the system.
First of all, jurors take anoath as a panel, an entire group
, to follow the law.
Then you have jurors taking anoath as individual jurors to
follow the law and finally, thenext section we have the next
(24:54):
fail-safe we have is the bardiat, which is a system whereby
each attorney will question thejurors individually to determine
if they are the type of jurorwho will try to go against the
law or not follow it.
Apart from all of thatattorneys will also file motions
to determine and prevent oneside or the other from arguing
(25:17):
things that would lead jurors toperhaps not follow the law.
So, in the case of Hector Ayala, was the verdict a product of
jury nullification?
That's the question, and theanswer turns on the issue do the
facts allow for no otherconclusion but guilt?
Let's move to the next one.
Well, let's see Everything yousaw, jerry Dibble, I want you to
(25:38):
forget what you saw as doers,and we're going to talk about
just what the jury in that casesaw.
And let's think about this thepeople.
The prosecution put on onewitness and only one witness,
and that witness testified.
That was Detective Powell andhe testified that he was in the
(26:00):
subway with his partner.
It was New Year's Eve.
They were out there, you know,basically patrolling for people
who would be drunk or perhapshigh or just being unruly.
So you would think that theywould be armed with batons,
rubber bullets, tasers, spray,all of those things that
(26:20):
normally officers carry in thatsituation.
Now he claims that they seethis man running at them and he
is, you know, crazy and theyhave time to identify themselves
, but they don't pull out theirguns, they don't call their
changers.
They don't do anything Now,everything.
Nothing I should say is thatDetective Powell testifies to
(26:42):
his corroboration.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
There's no corroboration, it's a simple
testimony of one witness is thatDetective Powell testifies to
his corroboration.
Speaker 5 (26:45):
There's no corroboration of the single
testimony of one witness.
Now the law says that thesingle testimony of one witness
can prove any fact that theright of that witness' testimony
is credible and reliable.
It must be credible and bringsome irreconcilable
contradictions.
Well, as you can see, there aremany irreconcilable
(27:06):
contradictions in this story.
That Detective Powell tellsthey're coming right.
There's somebody who's runningout of nowhere.
They don't behave the way onewould expect them to behave in
that situation and mostimportantly, there was nothing
to corroborate that Hector Ayalawas on drugs at the time and
that's an important point thatthey discussed but never really
(27:27):
get home, and that was somethingthat Matt Hurd actually gets
out of the mailbox.
That was his biggest piece ofevidence.
As I said, I kind of love yourbad news a lot right now.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Don't fire.
Speaker 5 (27:39):
Matt Hurd.
I know the defense put onPetraiello.
Now understand.
Mr Ibella took the stand andgave an incredible story and he
does not have to prove hisinnocence.
The prosecution has to provehis guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
He takes the stand, he iscorroborated.
He is corroborated by MichaelBurgos and Gianna Marina His
(28:05):
story about my country 8thpeople in need.
Now New York's standard forproof beyond reasonable doubt is
proof that leaves you so firmlyconvinced of the defendant's
skill that you have noreasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
In California we call this an abiding conviction, to
a moral certainty.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
Let's move on to the next one Now.
You folks have all beenpresented with the facts in this
case and you've heard the lawof reasonable doubt.
If I were to ask you to vote,how many of you have reasonable
doubt as to our dollar scale?
Raise your hands, okay.
How many of you don't Raiseyour hands?
No, raise your hands.
(28:46):
That is absolute proof thatthere is no jury nullification,
because you've all followed thelaw.
There is a reasonable beliefthat it happened when Hector
Ayala said it did, and when itcomes to interpreting the facts,
that is entirely in the purviewof the jury.
So if you interpret the factsany way you want, that you
follow the law.
It is not through nullification.
(29:07):
Yay, heck, yeah, I got all this.
For the sake, thank you.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
Thank you.
So we have about ten minutesleft, so I want everyone to
speak like.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Frank.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Castle.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
So again those subtle questions Can he?
Yes, yes, he did.
Does it exceed his authorityAbsolutely?
So generally no, mayors cannotdeclare martial law.
Their authority is limited tomore local stuff.
So they can declare localemergencies and issue curfews
and take general civil safetyactions, but martial law is not
(29:58):
one of them.
However, in 1871, the mayor ofChicago voluntarily placed the
city under General PhilipSheridan's control after the
Great Fire.
So it wasn't legally mandatedand it was certainly a rare
exception.
It did happen.
Amreya did once declare martiallaw.
So typically, going quickly,federally, a president and a
(30:21):
commander-in-chief can declaremartial law in extreme cases
such as invasion, rebellion,insurrection.
We're told Fisk's goal is tocomplete as many crimes as he
can and to get rid of thevigilantes, which is certainly
not any of those categories.
An example of that would beLincoln.
During the Civil War hedeclared martial law and
(30:43):
sanctioned arbitrary arrest anddetention, suspended habeas
corpus and he initiated trialsby way of military tribunal.
And one of those cases made itsway up to the Supreme Court in
ex parte Milligan, where martiallaw.
The court held that martial lawwas confined to areas of
military operations where warreally prevails, so it can't be
(31:05):
imposed when the civil courtsare actually functioning, so
that made its way all the way upto the Supreme Court.
They looked into whether it wasconstitutional for Lincoln to
commission the militaryproceedings and it was not, and
they got off.
State-wise, it's the governor Ifthe state law allows it.
(31:25):
Each state has different lawsand thresholds, but again it's
like civil unrest, naturaldisasters.
An example of that would beHawaii after Pearl Harbor, and
they were actually in martiallaw for up to three years.
It didn't get repealed for asolid amount of time.
But generally, yes, it's thestate governor, and then the
federal and president, becauseyou need to have control of a
(31:49):
militia in general in order toactivate it.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
So Judge Neher in two minutes or less.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Please explain one of those troubling and some of the
most troubling and subversiveconcepts in all of the law.
Speaker 5 (32:05):
Quick question how many attorneys are in this
audience?
Okay, what did you all?
Some rhetorical questions.
What did you all think of themat that trial in Victoria Island
, bringing in, oh, 20 or 30police reports and saying, here,
this is up there, let's examineit and use it as part of our
case and argue it.
And that was great for WhiteTide Board.
(32:26):
It made us all cheer.
But the problem is littleproblem is we have this right,
embedded in the sixth amendmentof the Constitution, to confront
and cross-examine our accusers.
Now we could argue that well,the person being accused was in
fact a trial, but it kind ofgoes over to all different parts
of a trial.
(32:47):
Each state and because this isso important, each state has
codified this concept fromwhat's known as the law of
courtesy and its exceptions.
Let's move on to the next one.
The Sixth Amendment explainsthat the accused shall enjoy the
right to be confronted with thewitnesses against them.
And in Crocker they talk aboutit's the purpose behind the
(33:10):
creation of the statement thatreturns the facts, whether it's
hearsay or not.
Next Now, the only exceptions.
And there's an exception thatactually, in New York, was
highly mitigated at the turn ofthe century.
This was the business recordsexception, and in this records
exception they talk about whichrecord?
(33:30):
If you make a record of anevent in the course of business,
at a very good time of theevent, and it's recorded in a
way that is gene trustworthy,this is an exception.
And there was a lot of argumentall over the country, but
specifically in New York, andI'm going to talk about the case
there where they talked aboutwhether a police report could be
a business record andultimately, in the case cited up
(33:52):
there, johnson v Lutz, which isnow a good law case, by the way
.
In New York.
They said specifically policereports are not are inadmissible
hearsay, because they are.
They're not.
They're based on statementsfrom third parties that were not
provided during the course ofbusiness as part of a business
(34:14):
duty.
The police officer isn't abusiness.
So it might be a duty, but it'snot a business student.
So it's very clear that thosepolice reports were hearsay,
with no exception.
And never would have never seenthe light of day in that
courtroom ever.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Is this a show?
Speaker 6 (34:32):
if they get divorced.
It's my favorite couple Allright.
How many of you all think thatthey're going to stay together
by a show of hands.
Well, if they don't staytogether and we can go to the
next slide.
It is a thing In family lawthere's far less law, there's
(34:58):
much smaller value of law thanin criminal law or civil law,
because most times it's based onfact-specific findings and it's
inequity you want to do what'sright.
You want to do what's right bypeople, otherwise they end up as
criminals.
So if you take all of theirproperty away, you'd be
surprised to find that New Yorkis not an equal distribution
(35:21):
state like California.
Instead it's an equitabledivision state.
So kind of what that means is,you know, you kind of do what's
fair to return the parties backto where they were before they
got married.
But in both states, in bothCalifornia, under Family Code
2550, or the New York DomesticRelations Law, if people get
(35:42):
divorced say our very belovedVanessa and Finch decided they
just can't work it out.
You have to decide first when isthe date of separation, when
are they going to leave?
Is it right before Fisk comesback?
Is it after he becomes mayor?
And then, once you determinethat, you have to determine
which of their assets were partof an illegal forum or an
(36:04):
illegal activity.
And then they run into theissue of seize and freeze.
This is one of my favoritethings.
So if by chance I'm married toMike here and he illegally
acquires this Funco, I don't getto claim from the.
I don't get to claim in thecourts.
Ah ah ah, criminal courts.
(36:25):
You can't take half of thisaway because it belongs to me.
It's half of my marital assets.
Instead, the government gets totake it all.
If, on the other hand, we'reable to establish that this
Funko doll was we got thistogether before his criminal
(36:46):
activity, back when he wasworking as a plumber, not as an
Indian plumber then I'm entitledto one half of it, but while
he's in prison, I can't waste it.
I can't waste it, I can't.
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Alright, Judge Nicholas, we'll send a message
after.
Speaker 7 (37:14):
So there is that.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
I know.
Speaker 7 (37:17):
Exactly.
Speaker 6 (37:19):
But in California and the marriage of Rossi, it said
hey look, an innocent spousecan't profit off of illegal
gains.
So basically how this works.
We have soda?
Yeah, you stole it.
I'm sorry I came by it, right?
Speaker 7 (37:36):
So I can't say that half of it is mine and can't go
to the government.
Speaker 6 (37:41):
However, if we're in California and it's all legal,
then he gets half, I get half.
In New York you might say youknow, mike, you don't look
thirsty, she looks thirsty.
I'm not talking about ourdating money, and so basically
(38:02):
that's how it is, but in the endyou can go to the next slide.
I truly believe that this willbe, better than all the states.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
yet I was asked if this started being an unexpected
giveaway, so I said no.
I was asked to start a game andhe didn't expect a giveaway, so
I said no, all right.
So, katrina, back to you andback to Fisk.
Can he use the NYPD as a person?
Speaker 3 (38:28):
So, yes, he can and he does, and I previously
mentioned that you needed to bein control of a militia in order
to activate it, and that's kindof what limits the ability to
declare martial law.
And Fisk does have a cutelittle militia here.
Fisk does have a cute littlemilitia here.
Punisher Merch with theirPunisher Tats.
(38:48):
He's weaponized the NYPD and indoing so he has broken all of
the laws, ethics laws, theConstitution, state and federal
criminal statutes likeconspiracy, rico, bribery,
deprivation of rights undercolor of law, extortion, murder
and attempted murder, kidnappingand unlawful imprisonment and
at least official misconduct,which is a Class A misdemeanor.
(39:11):
In New York of example of thisas well, there was a group of
Milwaukee policemen that calledthemselves the Punishers, and
they also had Punisher merch andPunisher tats had stickers on
their lockers.
So we got to see this actuallyplay out in the real world.
They were acquitted on thestate level and then they were
federally indicted for a few ofthose things I mentioned before.
(39:32):
Seven of them ended up beingconvicted for conspiracy,
deprivation of rights, and thenI think it was battery and the
like, and then the person thatthey beat and tortured and
stomped and stuck a pen throughhis ear sued the city for $30
million for a civil rights case.
(39:53):
So money damages as well In reallife.
He's probably likely to befired, likely sued and
potentially prosecuted.
Judge Owens.
Speaker 8 (40:07):
Which leads us to Ow Alright.
Well, the thing I love aboutthis show, daredevil.
It's obviously fiction, butlike the best fiction, it does a
wonderful job of illustratingreal world problems One of the
best I've ever seen.
So let's go to one clip.
Derek, you know, he's the mayorall of a sudden.
So how is he not in jail?
(40:27):
Well, let's look to history,because there actually have been
figures like Kingpin, whoeveryone knows is a bad dude,
everyone knows he's a criminal,but they don't go to jail.
So Whitey Bulger those who mightbe familiar with him.
He ran the Winter Hill Gang inBoston.
He murdered, racketeered, youname it.
He did it.
(40:47):
So why was he not in jailBecause of this guy?
One more click.
Well, looks like a little off.
Here we go again.
That's Whitey Bulger and thewriter this guy.
Here we go, john Conleyger.
And the writer, this guy.
Here we go, john conley.
So john conley was a long timefbi agent who cut a deal with
whitey bulger in exchange forwhitey bulger giving information
about the italian mafia whichthen the fbi used to destroy the
(41:10):
italian mafia, boston.
In exchange, he would givewhitey bowler a hedge up, heads
up when the feds were coming.
He would make sure whiteybulger did not get convicted.
If you've ever seen the moviethe Departed, that was based in
part on Whitey Bulger.
The movie Black Mass not asgood as the Departed is also
based on this whole scenario.
This is very similar to.
(41:32):
Let's go to the next slide.
Here we go.
Ray or Ray Nadim right Now RayNadim is more sympathetic than
John Connolly, but he did makethe same deal.
He made the same deal with thekingpin that the kingpin would
provide him with information.
He would use it to go aftergang figures.
And we know how it ended forRay Nadim Not well.
(41:52):
So what if Ray Nadim hadsurvived?
And what if Ray Nadim hadactually testified in court?
Well, here's the problem withthat.
We'll go to the next slide.
There's a long history ofpolice officers who have engaged
in this conduct, which leads tothe overturning of criminal
convictions the Rampart scandalin Los Angeles, which was the
basis of the movie Training Day.
This guy, rafael Perez, led thecrash unit in that area.
(42:12):
Over 100 convictions overturnedbecause they were based on
either evidence he gathered ortestimony he gave.
Once you have a dirty copinvolved, it's almost impossible
to sustain those convictions.
Here's probably a betterexample Mark Furman from OJ.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
Yeah, exactly Bad guy .
Speaker 8 (42:33):
Found OJ's glove Wrong guy for LAPD to find OJ's
glove.
At the trial we heard about allthe misconduct that he
committed and, not surprisingly,we had an acquittal in that
case.
So, even though Kingpin isobviously fiction, it does a
wonderful job of capturing whysomeone like the Kingpin who
crushed that guy's head in thelast episode was like this is
(42:55):
Disney Plus and he's crushingsomeone's head.
It's like next up moana.
You know I'm really surprisedby that, but it's.
But it does a great job ofcapturing those issues.
So, yes, the answer is there isa reason why kim kent is not in
jail, because law enforcementyeah, all right.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
Well, that is all of our content, so we have time for
questions, but first a round ofapplause for our panelists.
We have some information to getto in that amount of time, so
if anyone has any questions,feel free to pop up to the mic
(43:36):
or raise it up.
We've got a line going Alright.
Fantastic, we're going to popup to the mic for a break.
Oh, we got a line going Allright, fantastic.
Hi, I come to your panel foryour comment.
Anyway, I am a super proud NewYorker and so I love the street
level hero which is PeterCaradoy.
So I have two questions.
One is how does Daredevil'sstatus as attorney slash
(44:00):
simultaneous anonymous,basically sanctioned vigilante?
Have you been?
Speaker 3 (44:07):
land privileged.
Speaker 2 (44:08):
Another question is how does the state-specific law
of New York shape the flavor ofthe plot in the series?
How does it unfold a series ofexamples?
Ooh, All right.
Who wants to take aturn-in-client privilege?
Michael, you handled that inthe presentation.
We'll move to that one.
Speaker 7 (44:24):
Sure, I'm sorry.
Could you repeat the questionabout the turn-in-client
privilege?
Speaker 2 (44:27):
Yeah, just like there goes an attorney who is also an
anonymous vigilante who comesinto contact with people and
information whenever at the sametime.
Speaker 7 (44:34):
So just the basic problem of gender and sex, just
(44:59):
whatever you know, like, forexample, like gladiator when he
basically was able to get him,you know he was probably going
to go to prison for life, but hewas able to basically help him
out and get a mental health and,um, yeah.
So then he became go up in thestorm making costumes and so I
think having that knowledge justdoes kind of it's um, you know,
as far as, like you know, withgladiator, you know he's not the
(45:19):
client until Matt goes into thejail and basically says I'm
here to represent you, soanything before that, because
basically the attorney can haveprivilege.
You need to basically have aperson who's seeking an attorney
in a confidential conversationand actually get in seeking
legal advice.
And so when you're a vigilanteswinging around beating people
up, they're usually not askingseeking legal advice.
So when your vigilante'sswinging around beating people
up, they're usually not askingfor legal advice.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
I think it would be interesting if he was a
prosecutor, like if it wasslipped because there's a lot of
fruit in a poisonous tree.
Yeah, when he was a prosecutorI think actually that's part of
what got him disbarred.
Speaker 7 (45:55):
Oh, that's right, I knew.
Speaker 2 (45:57):
We might not get to part two, just so we can get to
some other questions.
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (46:03):
Hello, what does real world law say about the
dimensions of cells as folksacting outside of the appointed
law force to you know helpothers or go out there to do bad
things?
Speaker 2 (46:18):
Anything like that.
Don't do it.
Help others or go out there anddo bad things.
Speaker 6 (46:20):
Don't do it.
Speaker 8 (46:24):
In New York.
I've definitely criticized, butthey were the guardian angels.
Speaker 5 (46:28):
Yeah, the guardian angels they were.
I remember back in the daybecause I was a prostitute here,
when they were going strong andthey didn't have to be
prostitutes.
Speaker 2 (46:38):
Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it.
Speaker 4 (46:42):
The idea generally is we don't trust private citizens
to take a law that they don'tunderstand.
We will trust police lawenforcement because they're
sworn, they're trained.
That's the idea.
There are some other exceptionswhere people get away with
certain things, but don'tbelieve Liam Neeson in taking it
.
Speaker 7 (46:59):
Not in the right way.
I mean, the comics make it easybecause we know Daredevil's a
good guy, we know Batman's agood guy, and so when they go
beat somebody up, that's themdoing a good service.
But it's a lot murkier in thereal world and motivations are
never clear.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
Thank you.
Just a quick question for thoseof us who are limited Do we get
CLE credit?
Are we a credit?
So my question was is what areyour thoughts?
(47:41):
Slash, how realistic is how theFrank Castle trial in the
original show went?
Speaker 4 (47:54):
So that's very similar to people who remember
Bernie Getz from the late 80s.
There are some verysimilarities.
Bernie Getz was someone who wasa vigilante running a subway I
believe it was.
Three teenagers approached himthe robber and he pulled out a
gun and shot him.
The shot was two dead, I thinkone was paralyzed, and he was a
(48:19):
classic case of self-defense, aswe argued.
Ultimately he was actuallyacquitted or caught correctly,
and this became a seminal casefor the concept of self-defense.
Because the idea is, yes, youcan defend yourself, but it has
to be proportional to the threat.
So if someone comes at you witha knife, you're not supposed to
look out like a machine gun ora zoo gun.
(48:40):
It's still all proportional.
But one of the lasting effectsof the Bernie Gantz case was
that many of the publicsupported it because they
thought, hey, we don't feel thatwe're safe.
So is it realistic?
It's possible.
Speaker 2 (48:55):
There are some real world precedents for that.
All right, I think we have timefor maybe one or two more.
Speaker 4 (49:17):
Oh, and I'm also possible, there are some real
world um hi, um, Is there acontext where Spider-Man can
testify with his mask on and belike I'm Spider-Man?
Is that?
Speaker 6 (49:24):
I'm from New York.
Is that in any?
Speaker 5 (49:27):
universe.
Speaker 8 (49:28):
I can take that no.
Well, actually, in nationalsecurity cases, the answer is
yes.
There's a very rare exceptionin national security cases where
a witness actually can't bemasked.
It's extremely rare and theSupreme Court has set a are
justifying against them andthat's really not for children.
Speaker 5 (50:01):
So we talked to many children who have justified
against their perpetrators, butthey never do.
Speaker 8 (50:07):
We have a great area to talk about yeah, matt, we got
Matt Murdock behind you.
Mr Murdock, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (50:18):
We got the not-other-play to continue.
Speaker 3 (50:23):
I'll come talk to you .
I'm just waiting to go jackedoh.
Hello, my name is Joshua Gilliland and I am one of
the founding attorneys of theLegal Geeks.
I love going to San DiegoComic-Con.
We started going in 2015, andthe last decade's been awesome.
The following recording is fromour Daredevil Born Again panel,
recorded live on July 25, 2025.
(00:21):
Live on July 25th 2025.
This panel was a ton of fun,and here's a wild card.
I'm not on it.
This is the first time I didn'tmoderate a panel at San Diego
(00:41):
Comic-Con and I did it for asimple reason I wanted to be
sure another person had a chanceto be on a legal panel, because
we have a bunch of lawyers andjudges that want to participate.
Kate Bridal moderated and did agreat job, so now let's tune in
and check out our DaredevilBorn Again panel from San Diego
Comic-Con 2025.
I think you can come on andwe're right next door 1026.
(01:05):
So we're so happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Thanks for our fearless leader, josh Gilliland,
and for the rest of me, themoderator himself, which I'm
very honored by.
So we've got a fantastic panel.
A little bit about me I am aformer attorney.
I am also an actress, writerand content creator.
I'm making that stone for it.
My final page that's my finalpage is a popular sketch series
(01:52):
on TikTok and Instagram, meetingwith Lester, where I pretend to
be in a relationship with himand Lester.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
With that said.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
I do a lot of things.
Check it out, part A, part B.
I also have a podcast calledNight is Ruined where I host
night everyday objects, people,events and facts about their
dark history, or just dark factsabout them.
So, if you like the sound ofthat come see me after I've got
speakers.
All right, so we will starthere with Judge Chu, if you
(02:21):
would introduce yourself.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
So, okay, I don't know if my piece is out here so
I can embarrass myself.
So I'm a longtime member of theDeacon Geeks.
I've been on many panels herebefore.
Who here has been to our panelsbefore?
So I started off as an attorney.
I was sworn in two years ago tobecome a federal judge, so I'm
(02:45):
glad that I'm still here and Ithink that all the things I do
just maybe the only thing I dothat my kids think is sordid,
just sordid.
Yeah, judge O'Hara.
Hi, dan.
Speaker 5 (03:04):
Hi folks, I'm Judge Carol Lindera.
I was a prosecutor for threeyears before I came on the bench
and been a judge for ten yearsin the hub city of Compton.
I think I've been a legal geekabout that long too.
It's just a pleasure to be hereand see all you guys Some of
(03:25):
you I recognize.
Hi all.
Speaker 6 (03:29):
Hi, I'm Dana Nicholas and I was sworn in on the bench
in the same year, in 2023.
Prior to that, I was anattorney at the city, so I love
being part of Legal Geeks and sohopefully I get to see you all
again.
We've done some work here atComic-Con and at WonderCon and
ComicFest.
Speaker 7 (03:51):
So this is going to be great.
Hi, I'm Michael Skeen.
I'm an attorney practicing inSan Francisco.
This is my first panel with theLeague of Geeks and very happy
to be here.
Please be gentle with thequestions.
It's my first time and, yeah,lover of everything, geek and
happy to be here.
Please be gentle with thequestions.
It's my first time and, yeah,lover of everything geek and
happy to be here.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Hi everyone, I'm Katrina.
I'm an associate attorney atBest Best Krieger.
I practice environmental law.
This is maybe my third orfourth Eagle Geeks panel, so I'm
happy to be back.
Speaker 8 (04:23):
third or fourth legal geeks panel, so I'm happy to be
back and I'm john owens.
I'm a judge on the ninthcircuit court of appeals
apparently I'm jacqueline'sfather and, uh, the chamber's
(04:44):
here in San Diego, and I readDaredevil as a kid, and so I
still have the box upstairs withthe Death of Elektra still in
the box, not selling it, notselling it.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Yeah, so don't ask, but none of the guys.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
All right, so let's kick things off with Judge Chu
telling us about Goldstein andand whether he was sued for his
injuries when he ran for theblock.
This is actually one nuancedquestion that one might think.
So Bullseye, of course he's theJoker to Jared-O's, batman, the
Lex Luthor to Superman.
I mean, he is the arch-enemy Inthe comics.
The games would say that in hishands he thinks he's a deadly
black monster.
He really is the arch enemy Inthe comics.
(05:24):
The comics would say that inhis hands he thinks he's a
deadly weapon.
So he really is just absolutelydeadly and he has inflicted
more damage on Daryl's life thananyone.
He's Benjamin Poindexter in theTV show or Lester in the comics
.
Interesting are the twocharacterizations that diverged.
You know the comics version.
(05:44):
He's got all sorts of possiblehistories but in the TV show
he's actually a federal agent,which is very.
We won't get too far into that,but it's going to be an
interesting dynamic to hischaracterization.
So, as I said, he's done moredamage to Gerard than anyone
else.
Jojo, which meant referenceGerard 181, which is a turning
(06:05):
point for many people who aregoing through the 80s because it
saw the death of Electra.
I don't think I'm spoiling that, but he has killed Electra.
He has killed Karen Page in theGuardian Devil Room for Kevin
Smith.
He also killed the Adonivan inwhat was sort of a dream
sequence under Brian Aquaman ashis wife again, another
(06:28):
fantastic comic book.
But if anyone sort of reallycould be, or maybe should be, if
you believe that villainsshould be put away forever or
killed or whatnot, bullseyewould probably be a poster child
.
But we're not asking thatquestion.
We're actually asking whenBullseye sees Daredevil for
(06:49):
beating him up repeatedly and inthis case, in the opening
sequence of the Netflix show,daredevil defeats Bullseye after
seeing Claudia Nelson's longtime best friend, die in a
sensitive heartbeat and he seesthe body die, he beats Bullseye
(07:09):
and throws him off the top ofthe building.
So can Bullseye sue Dariel forthose injuries?
Can I get a show of hands whothinks yes, okay, alright.
So Duke, nuanced question hereCan he sue?
Yes, he can sue Will he winthat might be a little bit
(07:31):
different.
But it also may be a closerquestion than one may believe If
we continue onward.
So let's say he sued DarylDaryl.
He said well, it's all defense,he was attacking me.
If you watch the sequence inthe TV show, he wasn't really
attacking Daryl, he was actuallygoing after Fonny and then he
kills 18 people.
(07:51):
So you're not defendingyourself, you're not defending
yourself, but heroes are alwaysdefending others.
That's sort of the paradigm ofbeing a hero you defend others
before yourself.
Would that work Sometimes?
And the answer is sometimesit's not always seeming, but it
can happen.
(08:12):
Now, in terms of bullseye suing,there are cases where people
who are up to criminal activity,for example robbing someone in
their house and they slip on theceiling and fall and get hurt
they can actually sue thehomeowner for not maintaining
their house in a safe way.
It seems preposterous, but ifyou said, well, they were in the
(08:34):
middle of a criminal act thatwould usually be thrown out
under 403 because it's tooprejudicial.
So can he sue?
Yes, there are some cases wherepeople have won lawsuits like
this.
I think it would be unlikelyhere because there are a lot of
damaging facts, but the law isone of the nuance and it is a
(08:54):
possible one.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
It depends.
The eternal lawyer answer itdepends.
All right, Mike, tell us aboutthe significance of Red Hook as
a free court.
Sure so Red.
Speaker 7 (09:04):
Hook.
So the grand scheme of theFisks is to operate much of
their criminal empire throughRed Hook.
So the grand scheme of theFisks is to operate much of
their criminal empire throughRed Hook, which Matt and Karen
learn is a free port.
When they look in through thecharter, they also realize that
in the charter, according to thecharter, all federal, all state
, all local laws are exempt.
So does a free port really like, say, Tortuga from the Pirates
of the Caribbean?
Movies where anything goesShort answer no.
(09:29):
So free ports do exist in theworld.
There's many throughout theUnited States.
Although actually free port'san antiquated term, they're now
considered foreign trade zonesand they are governed by the
federal government.
You might say, well, there'sthat charter, but really the
courts would not give anyrespect to that because it was
done by the state and the statecan't overrule federal law and
(09:51):
really they can't exemptanything unless the legislatures
come in and pass laws providingexemptions, which very unlikely
that that happened.
And so, yeah, foreign tradezones are covered by 19 USC
Section 81A through U, andbasically 81C of that says that
all merchandise that's broughtinto a foreign trade zone
(10:13):
basically no customs laws apply,which means when merchandise
comes in there's no tariffs,there's no taxes, no duties,
other types of fees, but allother laws apply.
And although being exempt fromcustoms laws in a foreign trade
zone sounds really exciting,really, the second that the
merchandise leaves the foreigntrade zone and goes into the
(10:33):
United States, then all thosecustoms tariffs, import fees
then come into play and theyhave to get paid before they can
actually leave Red Hook.
So, like Vanessa Fisk, forexample, she has a bunch of art
in Red Hook and when she has tosell that, actually retail
activities specificallyprohibited in foreign trade
zones, and so the art needs toget moved, would probably move
(10:55):
to her gallery, in which caseshe'd have to pay any fees
related to that.
So one question is why wouldyou use foreign trade zone?
It's really basically to eitherdefer the cost of import fees
or maybe try and even lower them.
It's really about managingimport fees, so nothing that
exciting.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Another thing that prevents the fish from engaging
in any sort of nefariousactivities.
Speaker 7 (11:15):
But if they do engage in criminal activities,
hopefully they get caught anddefinitely go to prison, at
least until the next season.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Yes, All right, just to back to you.
So I think I'm a sort ofbusiness with Karen Page,
because she always says she'sgoing to cry and I worry that
I'm defending her at all times.
But Nelson and Murdoch did so.
Let's see how they do that witha question or two.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
So this is an interesting question.
It really depends on a coupleof things.
What is a parent she's?
Speaker 2 (11:45):
not a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
She's typically going to have to be licensed and pass
all these standards before youcan be an attorney.
But she's not a lawyer, she's asecretary.
She's a paralegal,paralegalsalegal is above
secretary.
They're actually training andlicensed for that as well.
(12:08):
She's an investigator, privateinvestigator, beyond the license
process as well.
The reason the thing we'relooking at is a bit of a sliding
scale the higher up you get,the more regulation there is,
the more you have to do training, laws to pass for credentials
and the more authority you haveto measure the sort of
(12:31):
partnerships whereby you can runa business and earn money.
There are a lot of regulations.
If we look at the how thingsare handled in real life,
typically, the rule is going tobe that if you were, if you were
to have an ownership interestin a law firm, you probably
should be a lawyer, becausethat's what most people think.
Now one question does anyonethink any state in the country
(12:54):
has actually allowed non-lawyersto become an owner in a law
firm?
Who says yes?
Can anyone guess the state?
Arizona?
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Very good, arizona needs to capitalize, whether
that's good or bad.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
it's time to tell.
We've seen regulations relaxwhere accounting firms are now
starting to get into thebusiness of law.
Very briefly, it's a nuancedargument that the reason people
(13:28):
say that non-owners should beallowed to own law firms that
have ownership interests isbecause they can then bring down
the cost of legal services andmake it cheaper for people.
If people don't always have tohire the $1,000 an hour lawyer
if they're hiring someone loweron the phone call, we can
(13:49):
deliver those services to peoplewho need them more at a lesser
rate.
On the other side, though, iswell, if we are letting assorted
people practice law without alicense, how do we regulate that
?
And isn't there a danger ofabuse?
Or perhaps you is not highenough or practices things like
(14:10):
that?
So it does depend, but not onArizona anymore.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Yeah, it depends on every region.
So Michael Matt does a lot ofthings which he probably doesn't
disbar, but among those thingsshould be a question of
understanding of attorney-clientpurpose.
So let's talk about it.
Speaker 7 (14:31):
Sure.
So attorney-client privilegeprotects communications between
the attorney and the client.
The goal of it is to create,allow open and honest
communications between theattorney and client so the
attorney can provide the bestadvice possible.
It never expires and really themain benefit of this is for the
client, which makes sense sincethey're providing a lot of
confidential information theywould want that protected.
(14:51):
Going hand-in-hand with theattorney-client privilege is a
duty of confidentiality thatstate bars impose on members of
the bar.
So Daredevil is in New York,and so Rule 1.6 of the New York
Rules of Professional Conductprecludes an attorney from
knowingly revealing confidentialinformation unless the client
gives informed consent,disclosure is impliedly
(15:11):
authorized and is reasonableunder certain circumstances or
falls under certain exceptionslisted under 1.6b, but none of
which apply in this case.
So Matt revealed in open courtthat Hector Ayala is the white
tiger.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
So Matt revealed in open court that Hector Ayala is
the white tiger.
Speaker 7 (15:27):
So did he breach his duty of confidentiality when he
did that?
Well, the information wasprotected by the duty of
confidentiality and he did notgive his prior consent.
So, yeah, Matt did violate theduty of confidentiality.
The other thing going on wasthat, prior to the trial, Matt
filed what's called a motion inlimine, and the motion in limine
it's a pretrial motion.
A party files to excludeevidence from the trial.
Guess what was excluded fromthe trial?
(15:49):
Any evidence about Hector Ayalbeing the White Tiger.
So, basically, when Mattreveals this in open court, he
manages to stop his client, theprosecution and the judge which
from a dumpster fire perspectiveis actually pretty impressive
to fail that spectacular testNot if you're being represented
(16:09):
by that person.
So the question is did he actreasonably under the
circumstances?
He tried to argue that for theprosecution Officer Powell
testified credibly.
His star witness had changedhis story on the stand and his
client didn't want to beconvicted, so he needed to hail
Mary.
So Hector ultimately did agreeto the disclosure after the fact
, but we'll just pretend thatdidn't want to be convicted.
So he needed to hail Mary.
So Hector ultimately did agreeto disclosure after the fact,
but you know, we'll just pretendthat didn't happen.
What would the State Bar do?
(16:30):
The State Bar would still findthat that was not reasonable,
and the reason why is becausethe motion of limine said you
can't talk about this.
And so even if, no matter whatreason was, he could try and
argue, he wouldn't get very far.
And the sad thing is that ifhe'd done things a little bit
differently, he actually couldhave done everything he wanted
to do and not gotten in trouble.
What he should have done wasasked for a recess and got
(16:51):
consent from the client and thenrequested a hearing outside of
the jury with the judge and makehis case, and hopefully the
judge would allow it, and thenMatt could just basically
proceed as he normally did.
Otherwise Matt risks beingdisciplined by the bar and kind
of contempt by the judge.
But, you know.
On the other hand, in thecomics, I believe, Matt's been
disbarred at least twice, maybemore so not an unfamiliar
(17:12):
situation to him, but still nota position you want to be in.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
It keeps coming back.
Speaker 6 (17:21):
So, Judge Nicholas, talk to us about this very
casual list of crimes you'reinvolved in.
You know, before I do that Ihave to say that I'm sort of
disappointed and jealous ofJudge Chu and Judge Owens.
Yet again, their families arehappy about the me and proud
about the me, and my kids are inthe back hiding.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
What about them and my kids are in the back hiding,
or no?
Oh no, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 6 (17:54):
So you know, we all know, what a bank robbery is.
Right, you go in, you take somestuff that doesn't belong to
you.
It's kind of like when you'rereaching your mom's purse to get
some extra change because youknow she's got something.
But what other crimes do youthink might be going on there?
Speaker 2 (18:13):
And don't cheat, don't look at my slide.
What other?
Speaker 6 (18:16):
things.
Anybody, any hands, anyonegoing to be brave?
Speaker 2 (18:21):
I'm sure there are people who are brave.
Are we talking about sex, lives, sex?
Speaker 6 (18:27):
actions or just the general scene.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
In I mean possession of a firearm, breaking and
entering stuff like that.
Excellent, excellent.
Speaker 6 (18:38):
And Matt can do things blind.
I am blind, but there are a lotof crimes that you have to take
into consideration.
So under 18 USC 2113, bankrobbery anyone who uses, by
force or violence orintimidation, takes or attempts
to take anything from anotherwhile they're in a bank or a
(19:01):
credit union ends up being abank robber.
One of my favorite lines fromthe episode deals with another
crime, which is the felonymurder rule.
So how many of you rememberMatt who's sitting there and
he's like, hey, you don't wannakill anybody, because then that
gets you 15 to 25, right on topof everything.
(19:21):
And felony murder under section125.25 in California amounts
basically to murder in thesecond degree.
So if you kill anyone whileyou're committing a felony, bam,
there you go, you got yourfelony murder.
And then also when you receiveproperty or conspiracy.
(19:42):
So you might think, oh, I'mgoing to have conspiracy to
commit a murder or commit afelony.
In the episode we see that theyhave a plant inside the bank
who's kind of tipping them offand that would constitute a
conspirator.
Oddly enough impersonatingofficers when they're making
their escape.
They dress like New York policeofficers.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Under California law that would be a only therapist
in New York City.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Was she obligated to reportsuspected criminal activity for
a mistress?
Speaker 4 (20:35):
So good question.
There we're getting a privilegeissue which, as judges know,
can be a very thorny and nuancedarea.
So, for instance, we have theattorney-client privilege that
we probably all know about.
We see it in the VCT,physician-patient privilege,
which we usually call formedical conditions.
But what about thetherapist-patient privilege?
(20:58):
Would that typically preventpre-protect communications
between the patient and thetherapist?
So I think I see some nodding.
Yes, that is a privilege, butwhat if the patient reveals to
the therapist that they arecontemplating criminal activity?
They're thinking like oh, I maynot be a good I may rob someone,
(21:20):
I may want to hurt somebody Atthat point, is the therapist
obligated to report that?
Who thinks yes, no, a littleover half, who says no, yes, oh,
ok, so this is a controversialarea of law so we can move
forward a little bit.
But I think one of thedifferent characterizations is
(21:44):
the topic of the movie movie orthe TV show.
But there's a real worldexample, very famous case out of
California called Tarasov,where a UC Berkeley student
named Tatiana Tarasov was killedby someone who was stalking her
and was also seeing a therapistwhere he reported that he was
teaching a parking permit.
In that case the therapistactually did contact some of the
(22:05):
campus police, the campussecurity, and they retained the
individual for a little whilebut they didn't hear the
elucidation so they let him goand a few weeks later,
tragically, he killed the staffat a terrace hall.
After that that case went allthe way up to the California
Supreme Court and it was a verydicey issue but ultimately the
California Supreme Court said soagain the question does a
(22:29):
therapist?
Is a therapist obligated toreport when a patient is
contemplating criminal activity?
The California Supreme Courtsaid yes.
So a lot of therapists wereworried, saying well, hey, how
are we going to have thesetechnical relationships now?
And the court said we arecarving out a narrow exception.
If someone else is in danger,credibly you've got to report
that.
So in the years since Parisoffering, the professionals in
(22:53):
Washington are closely worriedbecause we've brought them in.
But it has now become prettymuch the law of the land.
Many states have followedCalifornia, including New York,
in providing that if a patientis contributing to a therapist,
they report that the therapisthas to in turn also report that.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Thank you for that.
All right, so, Judge McCarron,was the criminalization of the
acquittal jury notification.
Tell us all about it.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
Before I do, I'm going to tell my kids and I'm
going to embarrass them, solet's talk.
Jury notification.
Tell us all about it Before.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
I do I'm going to tell my kids and I'm going to
embarrass them.
So now it's starting to be easy.
Speaker 5 (23:27):
But let's talk jury notification.
Let me ask you how many folksin the audience were after
seeing Daredevil, seeing theacquittal of Petra Yala.
I'm surprised by that number.
Raise your hands.
Speaker 6 (23:40):
Come on, let's see.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
I'm surprised, okay.
Okay, I'm going to talk alittle bit about what it means
when a jury comes back with averdict that people think maybe
is in defiance of the law.
And, specifically, there's abig question whether or not, in
this case, the verdict that thejurors rendered in that case in
the case of Hector O'Hara was infact a true legal verdict.
(24:06):
Jury notification, as definedby New York, is when a jury
acquits a defendant despiteevidence proving guilt, based on
the jury's belief that the lawis unjust or improperly applied.
When the facts seem to allowfor no other conclusion but
guilt and the jury comes backnot guilty, that is considered
(24:30):
jury nullification.
Let's move to the next slideNow.
There are many attempts tocircumvent this that are built
into the system.
First of all, jurors take anoath as a panel, an entire group
, to follow the law.
Then you have jurors taking anoath as individual jurors to
follow the law and finally, thenext section we have the next
(24:54):
fail-safe we have is the bardiat, which is a system whereby
each attorney will question thejurors individually to determine
if they are the type of jurorwho will try to go against the
law or not follow it.
Apart from all of thatattorneys will also file motions
to determine and prevent oneside or the other from arguing
(25:17):
things that would lead jurors toperhaps not follow the law.
So, in the case of Hector Ayala, was the verdict a product of
jury nullification?
That's the question, and theanswer turns on the issue do the
facts allow for no otherconclusion but guilt?
Let's move to the next one.
Well, let's see Everything yousaw, jerry Dibble, I want you to
(25:38):
forget what you saw as doers,and we're going to talk about
just what the jury in that casesaw.
And let's think about this thepeople.
The prosecution put on onewitness and only one witness,
and that witness testified.
That was Detective Powell andhe testified that he was in the
(26:00):
subway with his partner.
It was New Year's Eve.
They were out there, you know,basically patrolling for people
who would be drunk or perhapshigh or just being unruly.
So you would think that theywould be armed with batons,
rubber bullets, tasers, spray,all of those things that
(26:20):
normally officers carry in thatsituation.
Now he claims that they seethis man running at them and he
is, you know, crazy and theyhave time to identify themselves
, but they don't pull out theirguns, they don't call their
changers.
They don't do anything Now,everything.
Nothing I should say is thatDetective Powell testifies to
(26:42):
his corroboration.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
There's no corroboration, it's a simple
testimony of one witness is thatDetective Powell testifies to
his corroboration.
Speaker 5 (26:45):
There's no corroboration of the single
testimony of one witness.
Now the law says that thesingle testimony of one witness
can prove any fact that theright of that witness' testimony
is credible and reliable.
It must be credible and bringsome irreconcilable
contradictions.
Well, as you can see, there aremany irreconcilable
(27:06):
contradictions in this story.
That Detective Powell tellsthey're coming right.
There's somebody who's runningout of nowhere.
They don't behave the way onewould expect them to behave in
that situation and mostimportantly, there was nothing
to corroborate that Hector Ayalawas on drugs at the time and
that's an important point thatthey discussed but never really
(27:27):
get home, and that was somethingthat Matt Hurd actually gets
out of the mailbox.
That was his biggest piece ofevidence.
As I said, I kind of love yourbad news a lot right now.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
Don't fire.
Speaker 5 (27:39):
Matt Hurd.
I know the defense put onPetraiello.
Now understand.
Mr Ibella took the stand andgave an incredible story and he
does not have to prove hisinnocence.
The prosecution has to provehis guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
He takes the stand, he iscorroborated.
He is corroborated by MichaelBurgos and Gianna Marina His
(28:05):
story about my country 8thpeople in need.
Now New York's standard forproof beyond reasonable doubt is
proof that leaves you so firmlyconvinced of the defendant's
skill that you have noreasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
In California we call this an abiding conviction, to
a moral certainty.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
Let's move on to the next one Now.
You folks have all beenpresented with the facts in this
case and you've heard the lawof reasonable doubt.
If I were to ask you to vote,how many of you have reasonable
doubt as to our dollar scale?
Raise your hands, okay.
How many of you don't Raiseyour hands?
No, raise your hands.
(28:46):
That is absolute proof thatthere is no jury nullification,
because you've all followed thelaw.
There is a reasonable beliefthat it happened when Hector
Ayala said it did, and when itcomes to interpreting the facts,
that is entirely in the purviewof the jury.
So if you interpret the factsany way you want, that you
follow the law.
It is not through nullification.
(29:07):
Yay, heck, yeah, I got all this.
For the sake, thank you.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
Thank you.
So we have about ten minutesleft, so I want everyone to
speak like.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Frank.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Castle.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
So again those subtle questions Can he?
Yes, yes, he did.
Does it exceed his authorityAbsolutely?
So generally no, mayors cannotdeclare martial law.
Their authority is limited tomore local stuff.
So they can declare localemergencies and issue curfews
and take general civil safetyactions, but martial law is not
(29:58):
one of them.
However, in 1871, the mayor ofChicago voluntarily placed the
city under General PhilipSheridan's control after the
Great Fire.
So it wasn't legally mandatedand it was certainly a rare
exception.
It did happen.
Amreya did once declare martiallaw.
So typically, going quickly,federally, a president and a
(30:21):
commander-in-chief can declaremartial law in extreme cases
such as invasion, rebellion,insurrection.
We're told Fisk's goal is tocomplete as many crimes as he
can and to get rid of thevigilantes, which is certainly
not any of those categories.
An example of that would beLincoln.
During the Civil War hedeclared martial law and
(30:43):
sanctioned arbitrary arrest anddetention, suspended habeas
corpus and he initiated trialsby way of military tribunal.
And one of those cases made itsway up to the Supreme Court in
ex parte Milligan, where martiallaw.
The court held that martial lawwas confined to areas of
military operations where warreally prevails, so it can't be
(31:05):
imposed when the civil courtsare actually functioning, so
that made its way all the way upto the Supreme Court.
They looked into whether it wasconstitutional for Lincoln to
commission the militaryproceedings and it was not, and
they got off.
State-wise, it's the governor Ifthe state law allows it.
(31:25):
Each state has different lawsand thresholds, but again it's
like civil unrest, naturaldisasters.
An example of that would beHawaii after Pearl Harbor, and
they were actually in martiallaw for up to three years.
It didn't get repealed for asolid amount of time.
But generally, yes, it's thestate governor, and then the
federal and president, becauseyou need to have control of a
(31:49):
militia in general in order toactivate it.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
So Judge Neher in two minutes or less.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Please explain one of those troubling and some of the
most troubling and subversiveconcepts in all of the law.
Speaker 5 (32:05):
Quick question how many attorneys are in this
audience?
Okay, what did you all?
Some rhetorical questions.
What did you all think of themat that trial in Victoria Island
, bringing in, oh, 20 or 30police reports and saying, here,
this is up there, let's examineit and use it as part of our
case and argue it.
And that was great for WhiteTide Board.
(32:26):
It made us all cheer.
But the problem is littleproblem is we have this right,
embedded in the sixth amendmentof the Constitution, to confront
and cross-examine our accusers.
Now we could argue that well,the person being accused was in
fact a trial, but it kind ofgoes over to all different parts
of a trial.
(32:47):
Each state and because this isso important, each state has
codified this concept fromwhat's known as the law of
courtesy and its exceptions.
Let's move on to the next one.
The Sixth Amendment explainsthat the accused shall enjoy the
right to be confronted with thewitnesses against them.
And in Crocker they talk aboutit's the purpose behind the
(33:10):
creation of the statement thatreturns the facts, whether it's
hearsay or not.
Next Now, the only exceptions.
And there's an exception thatactually, in New York, was
highly mitigated at the turn ofthe century.
This was the business recordsexception, and in this records
exception they talk about whichrecord?
(33:30):
If you make a record of anevent in the course of business,
at a very good time of theevent, and it's recorded in a
way that is gene trustworthy,this is an exception.
And there was a lot of argumentall over the country, but
specifically in New York, andI'm going to talk about the case
there where they talked aboutwhether a police report could be
a business record andultimately, in the case cited up
(33:52):
there, johnson v Lutz, which isnow a good law case, by the way
.
In New York.
They said specifically policereports are not are inadmissible
hearsay, because they are.
They're not.
They're based on statementsfrom third parties that were not
provided during the course ofbusiness as part of a business
(34:14):
duty.
The police officer isn't abusiness.
So it might be a duty, but it'snot a business student.
So it's very clear that thosepolice reports were hearsay,
with no exception.
And never would have never seenthe light of day in that
courtroom ever.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Is this a show?
Speaker 6 (34:32):
if they get divorced.
It's my favorite couple Allright.
How many of you all think thatthey're going to stay together
by a show of hands.
Well, if they don't staytogether and we can go to the
next slide.
It is a thing In family lawthere's far less law, there's
(34:58):
much smaller value of law thanin criminal law or civil law,
because most times it's based onfact-specific findings and it's
inequity you want to do what'sright.
You want to do what's right bypeople, otherwise they end up as
criminals.
So if you take all of theirproperty away, you'd be
surprised to find that New Yorkis not an equal distribution
(35:21):
state like California.
Instead it's an equitabledivision state.
So kind of what that means is,you know, you kind of do what's
fair to return the parties backto where they were before they
got married.
But in both states, in bothCalifornia, under Family Code
2550, or the New York DomesticRelations Law, if people get
(35:42):
divorced say our very belovedVanessa and Finch decided they
just can't work it out.
You have to decide first when isthe date of separation, when
are they going to leave?
Is it right before Fisk comesback?
Is it after he becomes mayor?
And then, once you determinethat, you have to determine
which of their assets were partof an illegal forum or an
(36:04):
illegal activity.
And then they run into theissue of seize and freeze.
This is one of my favoritethings.
So if by chance I'm married toMike here and he illegally
acquires this Funco, I don't getto claim from the.
I don't get to claim in thecourts.
Ah ah ah, criminal courts.
(36:25):
You can't take half of thisaway because it belongs to me.
It's half of my marital assets.
Instead, the government gets totake it all.
If, on the other hand, we'reable to establish that this
Funko doll was we got thistogether before his criminal
(36:46):
activity, back when he wasworking as a plumber, not as an
Indian plumber then I'm entitledto one half of it, but while
he's in prison, I can't waste it.
I can't waste it, I can't.
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Alright, Judge Nicholas, we'll send a message
after.
Speaker 7 (37:14):
So there is that.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
I know.
Speaker 7 (37:17):
Exactly.
Speaker 6 (37:19):
But in California and the marriage of Rossi, it said
hey look, an innocent spousecan't profit off of illegal
gains.
So basically how this works.
We have soda?
Yeah, you stole it.
I'm sorry I came by it, right?
Speaker 7 (37:36):
So I can't say that half of it is mine and can't go
to the government.
Speaker 6 (37:41):
However, if we're in California and it's all legal,
then he gets half, I get half.
In New York you might say youknow, mike, you don't look
thirsty, she looks thirsty.
I'm not talking about ourdating money, and so basically
(38:02):
that's how it is, but in the endyou can go to the next slide.
I truly believe that this willbe, better than all the states.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
yet I was asked if this started being an unexpected
giveaway, so I said no.
I was asked to start a game andhe didn't expect a giveaway, so
I said no, all right.
So, katrina, back to you andback to Fisk.
Can he use the NYPD as a person?
Speaker 3 (38:28):
So, yes, he can and he does, and I previously
mentioned that you needed to bein control of a militia in order
to activate it, and that's kindof what limits the ability to
declare martial law.
And Fisk does have a cutelittle militia here.
Fisk does have a cute littlemilitia here.
Punisher Merch with theirPunisher Tats.
(38:48):
He's weaponized the NYPD and indoing so he has broken all of
the laws, ethics laws, theConstitution, state and federal
criminal statutes likeconspiracy, rico, bribery,
deprivation of rights undercolor of law, extortion, murder
and attempted murder, kidnappingand unlawful imprisonment and
at least official misconduct,which is a Class A misdemeanor.
(39:11):
In New York of example of thisas well, there was a group of
Milwaukee policemen that calledthemselves the Punishers, and
they also had Punisher merch andPunisher tats had stickers on
their lockers.
So we got to see this actuallyplay out in the real world.
They were acquitted on thestate level and then they were
federally indicted for a few ofthose things I mentioned before.
(39:32):
Seven of them ended up beingconvicted for conspiracy,
deprivation of rights, and thenI think it was battery and the
like, and then the person thatthey beat and tortured and
stomped and stuck a pen throughhis ear sued the city for $30
million for a civil rights case.
(39:53):
So money damages as well In reallife.
He's probably likely to befired, likely sued and
potentially prosecuted.
Judge Owens.
Speaker 8 (40:07):
Which leads us to Ow Alright.
Well, the thing I love aboutthis show, daredevil.
It's obviously fiction, butlike the best fiction, it does a
wonderful job of illustratingreal world problems One of the
best I've ever seen.
So let's go to one clip.
Derek, you know, he's the mayorall of a sudden.
So how is he not in jail?
(40:27):
Well, let's look to history,because there actually have been
figures like Kingpin, whoeveryone knows is a bad dude,
everyone knows he's a criminal,but they don't go to jail.
So Whitey Bulger those who mightbe familiar with him.
He ran the Winter Hill Gang inBoston.
He murdered, racketeered, youname it.
He did it.
(40:47):
So why was he not in jailBecause of this guy?
One more click.
Well, looks like a little off.
Here we go again.
That's Whitey Bulger and thewriter this guy.
Here we go, john Conleyger.
And the writer, this guy.
Here we go, john conley.
So john conley was a long timefbi agent who cut a deal with
whitey bulger in exchange forwhitey bulger giving information
about the italian mafia whichthen the fbi used to destroy the
(41:10):
italian mafia, boston.
In exchange, he would givewhitey bowler a hedge up, heads
up when the feds were coming.
He would make sure whiteybulger did not get convicted.
If you've ever seen the moviethe Departed, that was based in
part on Whitey Bulger.
The movie Black Mass not asgood as the Departed is also
based on this whole scenario.
This is very similar to.
(41:32):
Let's go to the next slide.
Here we go.
Ray or Ray Nadim right Now RayNadim is more sympathetic than
John Connolly, but he did makethe same deal.
He made the same deal with thekingpin that the kingpin would
provide him with information.
He would use it to go aftergang figures.
And we know how it ended forRay Nadim Not well.
(41:52):
So what if Ray Nadim hadsurvived?
And what if Ray Nadim hadactually testified in court?
Well, here's the problem withthat.
We'll go to the next slide.
There's a long history ofpolice officers who have engaged
in this conduct, which leads tothe overturning of criminal
convictions the Rampart scandalin Los Angeles, which was the
basis of the movie Training Day.
This guy, rafael Perez, led thecrash unit in that area.
(42:12):
Over 100 convictions overturnedbecause they were based on
either evidence he gathered ortestimony he gave.
Once you have a dirty copinvolved, it's almost impossible
to sustain those convictions.
Here's probably a betterexample Mark Furman from OJ.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
Yeah, exactly Bad guy .
Speaker 8 (42:33):
Found OJ's glove Wrong guy for LAPD to find OJ's
glove.
At the trial we heard about allthe misconduct that he
committed and, not surprisingly,we had an acquittal in that
case.
So, even though Kingpin isobviously fiction, it does a
wonderful job of capturing whysomeone like the Kingpin who
crushed that guy's head in thelast episode was like this is
(42:55):
Disney Plus and he's crushingsomeone's head.
It's like next up moana.
You know I'm really surprisedby that, but it's.
But it does a great job ofcapturing those issues.
So, yes, the answer is there isa reason why kim kent is not in
jail, because law enforcementyeah, all right.
Speaker 2 (43:13):
Well, that is all of our content, so we have time for
questions, but first a round ofapplause for our panelists.
We have some information to getto in that amount of time, so
if anyone has any questions,feel free to pop up to the mic
(43:36):
or raise it up.
We've got a line going Alright.
Fantastic, we're going to popup to the mic for a break.
Oh, we got a line going Allright, fantastic.
Hi, I come to your panel foryour comment.
Anyway, I am a super proud NewYorker and so I love the street
level hero which is PeterCaradoy.
So I have two questions.
One is how does Daredevil'sstatus as attorney slash
(44:00):
simultaneous anonymous,basically sanctioned vigilante?
Have you been?
Speaker 3 (44:07):
land privileged.
Speaker 2 (44:08):
Another question is how does the state-specific law
of New York shape the flavor ofthe plot in the series?
How does it unfold a series ofexamples?
Ooh, All right.
Who wants to take aturn-in-client privilege?
Michael, you handled that inthe presentation.
We'll move to that one.
Speaker 7 (44:24):
Sure, I'm sorry.
Could you repeat the questionabout the turn-in-client
privilege?
Speaker 2 (44:27):
Yeah, just like there goes an attorney who is also an
anonymous vigilante who comesinto contact with people and
information whenever at the sametime.
Speaker 7 (44:34):
So just the basic problem of gender and sex, just
(44:59):
whatever you know, like, forexample, like gladiator when he
basically was able to get him,you know he was probably going
to go to prison for life, but hewas able to basically help him
out and get a mental health and,um, yeah.
So then he became go up in thestorm making costumes and so I
think having that knowledge justdoes kind of it's um, you know,
as far as, like you know, withgladiator, you know he's not the
(45:19):
client until Matt goes into thejail and basically says I'm
here to represent you, soanything before that, because
basically the attorney can haveprivilege.
You need to basically have aperson who's seeking an attorney
in a confidential conversationand actually get in seeking
legal advice.
And so when you're a vigilanteswinging around beating people
up, they're usually not askingseeking legal advice.
So when your vigilante'sswinging around beating people
up, they're usually not askingfor legal advice.
Speaker 2 (45:41):
I think it would be interesting if he was a
prosecutor, like if it wasslipped because there's a lot of
fruit in a poisonous tree.
Yeah, when he was a prosecutorI think actually that's part of
what got him disbarred.
Speaker 7 (45:55):
Oh, that's right, I knew.
Speaker 2 (45:57):
We might not get to part two, just so we can get to
some other questions.
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (46:03):
Hello, what does real world law say about the
dimensions of cells as folksacting outside of the appointed
law force to you know helpothers or go out there to do bad
things?
Speaker 2 (46:18):
Anything like that.
Don't do it.
Help others or go out there anddo bad things.
Speaker 6 (46:20):
Don't do it.
Speaker 8 (46:24):
In New York.
I've definitely criticized, butthey were the guardian angels.
Speaker 5 (46:28):
Yeah, the guardian angels they were.
I remember back in the daybecause I was a prostitute here,
when they were going strong andthey didn't have to be
prostitutes.
Speaker 2 (46:38):
Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it.
Speaker 4 (46:42):
The idea generally is we don't trust private citizens
to take a law that they don'tunderstand.
We will trust police lawenforcement because they're
sworn, they're trained.
That's the idea.
There are some other exceptionswhere people get away with
certain things, but don'tbelieve Liam Neeson in taking it
.
Speaker 7 (46:59):
Not in the right way.
I mean, the comics make it easybecause we know Daredevil's a
good guy, we know Batman's agood guy, and so when they go
beat somebody up, that's themdoing a good service.
But it's a lot murkier in thereal world and motivations are
never clear.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
Thank you.
Just a quick question for thoseof us who are limited Do we get
CLE credit?
Are we a credit?
So my question was is what areyour thoughts?
(47:41):
Slash, how realistic is how theFrank Castle trial in the
original show went?
Speaker 4 (47:54):
So that's very similar to people who remember
Bernie Getz from the late 80s.
There are some verysimilarities.
Bernie Getz was someone who wasa vigilante running a subway I
believe it was.
Three teenagers approached himthe robber and he pulled out a
gun and shot him.
The shot was two dead, I thinkone was paralyzed, and he was a
(48:19):
classic case of self-defense, aswe argued.
Ultimately he was actuallyacquitted or caught correctly,
and this became a seminal casefor the concept of self-defense.
Because the idea is, yes, youcan defend yourself, but it has
to be proportional to the threat.
So if someone comes at you witha knife, you're not supposed to
look out like a machine gun ora zoo gun.
(48:40):
It's still all proportional.
But one of the lasting effectsof the Bernie Gantz case was
that many of the publicsupported it because they
thought, hey, we don't feel thatwe're safe.
So is it realistic?
It's possible.
Speaker 2 (48:55):
There are some real world precedents for that.
All right, I think we have timefor maybe one or two more.
Speaker 4 (49:17):
Oh, and I'm also possible, there are some real
world um hi, um, Is there acontext where Spider-Man can
testify with his mask on and belike I'm Spider-Man?
Is that?
Speaker 6 (49:24):
I'm from New York.
Is that in any?
Speaker 5 (49:27):
universe.
Speaker 8 (49:28):
I can take that no.
Well, actually, in nationalsecurity cases, the answer is
yes.
There's a very rare exceptionin national security cases where
a witness actually can't bemasked.
It's extremely rare and theSupreme Court has set a are
justifying against them andthat's really not for children.
Speaker 5 (50:01):
So we talked to many children who have justified
against their perpetrators, butthey never do.
Speaker 8 (50:07):
We have a great area to talk about yeah, matt, we got
Matt Murdock behind you.
Mr Murdock, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (50:18):
We got the not-other-play to continue.
Speaker 3 (50:23):
I'll come talk to you .
I'm just waiting to go jackedoh.
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.