The Legal Geeks

The Legal Geeks at Comic-Con: Daredevil Born Again

• Joshua Gilliland, Circuit Judge John B. Owens, Magistrate Judge Steve Chu, Judge Carol Najera, Judge Danna Nicholas, Micheal Skeen, Katrina Wraight, and Kate Bridal.

Share episode

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

Support the show


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

Speaker 1:

Hello, my name is Joshua Gilliland and I am one of the founding attorneys of the Legal Geeks. I love going to San Diego Comic-Con. We started going in 2015, and the last decade's been awesome. The following recording is from our Daredevil Born Again panel, recorded live on July 25, 2025. 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't moderate a panel at San Diego Comic-Con and I did it for a simple reason I wanted to be sure another person had a chance to be on a legal panel, because we have a bunch of lawyers and judges that want to participate. Kate Bridal moderated and did a great job, so now let's tune in and check out our Daredevil Born Again panel from San Diego Comic-Con 2025. I think you can come on and we're right next door 1026. So we're so happy to be here.

Speaker 2:

Thanks for our fearless leader, josh Gilliland, and for the rest of me, the moderator himself, which I'm very honored by. So we've got a fantastic panel. A little bit about me I am a former attorney. I am also an actress, writer and content creator. I'm making that stone for it. My final page that's my final page is a popular sketch series on TikTok and Instagram, meeting with Lester, where I pretend to be in a relationship with him and Lester.

Speaker 1:

With that said.

Speaker 2:

I do a lot of things. Check it out, part A, part B. I also have a podcast called Night is Ruined where I host night everyday objects, people, events and facts about their dark history, or just dark facts about them. So, if you like the sound of that come see me after I've got speakers. All right, so we will start here with Judge Chu, if you would introduce yourself.

Speaker 4:

So, okay, I don't know if my piece is out here so I can embarrass myself. So I'm a longtime member of the Deacon Geeks. I've been on many panels here before. Who here has been to our panels before? So I started off as an attorney. I was sworn in two years ago to become a federal judge, so I'm glad that I'm still here and I think that all the things I do just maybe the only thing I do that my kids think is sordid, just sordid. Yeah, judge O'Hara. Hi, dan.

Speaker 5:

Hi folks, I'm Judge Carol Lindera. I was a prosecutor for three years before I came on the bench and been a judge for ten years in the hub city of Compton. I think I've been a legal geek about that long too. It's just a pleasure to be here and see all you guys Some of you I recognize. Hi all.

Speaker 6:

Hi, I'm Dana Nicholas and I was sworn in on the bench in the same year, in 2023. Prior to that, I was an attorney at the city, so I love being part of Legal Geeks and so hopefully I get to see you all again. We've done some work here at Comic-Con and at WonderCon and ComicFest.

Speaker 7:

So this is going to be great. Hi, I'm Michael Skeen. I'm an attorney practicing in San Francisco. This is my first panel with the League of Geeks and very happy to be here. Please be gentle with the questions. It's my first time and, yeah, lover of everything, geek and happy to be here. Please be gentle with the questions. It's my first time and, yeah, lover of everything geek and happy to be here.

Speaker 3:

Hi everyone, I'm Katrina. I'm an associate attorney at Best Best Krieger. I practice environmental law. This is maybe my third or fourth Eagle Geeks panel, so I'm happy to be back.

Speaker 8:

third or fourth legal geeks panel, so I'm happy to be back and I'm john owens. I'm a judge on the ninth circuit court of appeals apparently I'm jacqueline's father and, uh, the chamber's here in San Diego, and I read Daredevil as a kid, and so I still have the box upstairs with the Death of Elektra still in the box, not selling it, not selling it.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so don't ask, but none of the guys.

Speaker 4:

All right, so let's kick things off with Judge Chu telling us about Goldstein and and whether he was sued for his injuries when he ran for the block. This is actually one nuanced question that one might think.

Speaker 4:

So Bullseye, of course he's the Joker to Jared-O's, batman, the Lex Luthor to Superman. I mean, he is the arch-enemy In the comics. The games would say that in his hands he thinks he's a deadly black monster. He really is the arch enemy In the comics. The comics would say that in his hands he thinks he's a deadly weapon. So he really is just absolutely deadly and he has inflicted more damage on Daryl's life than anyone. He's Benjamin Poindexter in the TV show or Lester in the comics. Interesting are the two characterizations that diverged. You know the comics version. He's got all sorts of possible histories but in the TV show he's actually a federal agent, which is very.

Speaker 4:

We won't get too far into that, but it's going to be an interesting dynamic to his characterization. So, as I said, he's done more damage to Gerard than anyone else. Jojo, which meant reference Gerard 181, which is a turning point for many people who are going 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 the Guardian Devil Room for Kevin Smith. He also killed the Adonivan in what was sort of a dream sequence under Brian Aquaman as his wife again, another fantastic comic book.

Speaker 4:

But if anyone sort of really could be, or maybe should be, if you believe that villains should be put away forever or killed or whatnot, bullseye would probably be a poster child. But we're not asking that question. We're actually asking when Bullseye sees Daredevil for beating him up repeatedly and in this case, in the opening sequence of the Netflix show, daredevil defeats Bullseye after seeing Claudia Nelson's long time best friend, die in a sensitive heartbeat and he sees the body die, he beats Bullseye and throws him off the top of the building. So can Bullseye sue Dariel for those injuries? Can I get a show of hands who thinks yes, okay, alright. So Duke, nuanced question here Can he sue? Yes, he can sue Will he win that might be a little bit different.

Speaker 4:

But it also may be a closer question than one may believe If we continue onward. So let's say he sued Daryl Daryl. He said well, it's all defense, he was attacking me. If you watch the sequence in the TV show, he wasn't really attacking Daryl, he was actually going after Fonny and then he kills 18 people. So you're not defending yourself, you're not defending yourself, but heroes are always defending others. That's sort of the paradigm of being a hero you defend others before yourself. Would that work Sometimes? And the answer is sometimes it's not always seeming, but it can happen.

Speaker 4:

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 the ceiling and fall and get hurt they can actually sue the homeowner for not maintaining their house in a safe way. It seems preposterous, but if you said, well, they were in the middle of a criminal act that would usually be thrown out under 403 because it's too prejudicial. So can he sue? Yes, there are some cases where people have won lawsuits like this. I think it would be unlikely here because there are a lot of damaging facts, but the law is one of the nuance and it is a possible one.

Speaker 2:

It depends. The eternal lawyer answer it depends. All right, Mike, tell us about the significance of Red Hook as a free court. Sure so Red.

Speaker 7:

Hook. So the grand scheme of the Fisks is to operate much of their criminal empire through Red Hook. So the grand scheme of the Fisks is to operate much of their criminal empire through Red Hook, which Matt and Karen learn is a free port. When they look in through the charter, they also realize that in the charter, according to the charter, 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 goes Short answer no.

Speaker 7:

So free ports do exist in the world. There's many throughout the United States. Although actually free port's an antiquated term, they're now considered foreign trade zones and they are governed by the federal government. You might say, well, there's that charter, but really the courts would not give any respect to that because it was done by the state and the state can't overrule federal law and really they can't exempt anything unless the legislatures come in and pass laws providing exemptions, which very unlikely that that happened. And so, yeah, foreign trade zones are covered by 19 USC Section 81A through U, and basically 81C of that says that all merchandise that's brought into a foreign trade zone 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 all other laws apply.

Speaker 7:

And although being exempt from customs laws in a foreign trade zone sounds really exciting, really, the second that the merchandise leaves the foreign trade zone and goes into the United States, then all those customs tariffs, import fees then come into play and they have to get paid before they can actually leave Red Hook. So, like Vanessa Fisk, for example, she has a bunch of art in Red Hook and when she has to sell that, actually retail activities specifically prohibited in foreign trade zones, and so the art needs to get moved, would probably move to her gallery, in which case she'd have to pay any fees related to that. So one question is why would you use foreign trade zone? It's really basically to either defer the cost of import fees or maybe try and even lower them. It's really about managing import fees, so nothing that exciting.

Speaker 2:

Another thing that prevents the fish from engaging in any sort of nefarious activities.

Speaker 7:

But if they do engage in criminal activities, hopefully they get caught and definitely go to prison, at least until the next season.

Speaker 2:

Yes, All right, just to back to you. So I think I'm a sort of business with Karen Page, because she always says she's going 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 with a question or two.

Speaker 4:

So this is an interesting question. It really depends on a couple of things. What is a parent she's?

Speaker 2:

not a lawyer.

Speaker 4:

She's typically going to have to be licensed and pass all these standards before you can be an attorney. But she's not a lawyer, she's a secretary. She's a paralegal, paralegalsalegal is above secretary.

Speaker 4:

They're actually training and licensed for that as well. She's an investigator, private investigator, beyond the license process as well. The reason the thing we're looking 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 have to measure the sort of partnerships whereby you can run a business and earn money. There are a lot of regulations. If we look at the how things are handled in real life, typically, the rule is going to be that if you were, if you were to have an ownership interest in a law firm, you probably should be a lawyer, because that's what most people think. Now one question does anyone think any state in the country has actually allowed non-lawyers to become an owner in a law firm? Who says yes? Can anyone guess the state? Arizona?

Speaker 2:

Very good, arizona needs to capitalize, whether that's good or bad.

Speaker 4:

it's time to tell. We've seen regulations relax where accounting firms are now starting to get into the business of law. Very briefly, it's a nuanced argument that the reason people say that non-owners should be allowed to own law firms that have ownership interests is because they can then bring down the cost of legal services and make it cheaper for people. If people don't always have to hire the $1,000 an hour lawyer if they're hiring someone lower on the phone call, we can deliver those services to people who need them more at a lesser rate. On the other side, though, is well, if we are letting assorted people practice law without a license, how do we regulate that? And isn't there a danger of abuse? Or perhaps you is not high enough or practices things like that? So it does depend, but not on Arizona anymore.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it depends on every region. So Michael Matt does a lot of things which he probably doesn't disbar, but among those things should be a question of understanding of attorney-client purpose. So let's talk about it.

Speaker 7:

Sure. So attorney-client privilege protects communications between the attorney and the client. The goal of it is to create, allow open and honest communications between the attorney and client so the attorney can provide the best advice possible. It never expires and really the main benefit of this is for the client, which makes sense since they're providing a lot of confidential information they would want that protected. Going hand-in-hand with the attorney-client privilege is a duty of confidentiality that state 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 Conduct precludes an attorney from knowingly revealing confidential information unless the client gives informed consent, disclosure is impliedly authorized and is reasonable under certain circumstances or falls under certain exceptions listed under 1.6b, but none of which apply in this case. So Matt revealed in open court that Hector Ayala is the white tiger.

Speaker 1:

So Matt revealed in open court that Hector Ayala is the white tiger.

Speaker 7:

So did he breach his duty of confidentiality when he did that? Well, the information was protected by the duty of confidentiality and he did not give his prior consent. So, yeah, Matt did violate the duty of confidentiality. The other thing going on was that, prior to the trial, Matt filed what's called a motion in limine, and the motion in limine it's a pretrial motion. A party files to exclude evidence from the trial. Guess what was excluded from the trial? Any evidence about Hector Ayal being the White Tiger. So, basically, when Matt reveals this in open court, he manages to stop his client, the prosecution and the judge which from a dumpster fire perspective is actually pretty impressive to fail that spectacular test Not if you're being represented by that person.

Speaker 7:

So the question is did he act reasonably under the circumstances? He tried to argue that for the prosecution Officer Powell testified credibly. His star witness had changed his story on the stand and his client didn't want to be convicted, so he needed to hail Mary.

Speaker 7:

So Hector ultimately did agree to the disclosure after the fact, but we'll just pretend that didn't want to be convicted. So he needed to hail Mary. So Hector ultimately did agree to disclosure after the fact, but you know, we'll just pretend that didn't happen. What would the State Bar do? The State Bar would still find that that was not reasonable, and the reason why is because the motion of limine said you can't talk about this. And so even if, no matter what reason was, he could try and argue, he wouldn't get very far. And the sad thing is that if he'd done things a little bit differently, he actually could have done everything he wanted to do and not gotten in trouble. What he should have done was asked for a recess and got consent from the client and then requested a hearing outside of the jury with the judge and make his case, and hopefully the judge would allow it, and then Matt could just basically proceed as he normally did. Otherwise Matt risks being disciplined by the bar and kind of contempt by the judge.

Speaker 7:

But, you know. On the other hand, in the comics, I believe, Matt's been disbarred at least twice, maybe more so not an unfamiliar situation to him, but still not a position you want to be in.

Speaker 2:

It keeps coming back.

Speaker 6:

So, Judge Nicholas, talk to us about this very casual list of crimes you're involved in. You know, before I do that I have to say that I'm sort of disappointed and jealous of Judge Chu and Judge Owens. Yet again, their families are happy about the me and proud about the me, and my kids are in the back hiding.

Speaker 2:

What about them and my kids are in the back hiding, or no? Oh no, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 6:

So you know, we all know, what a bank robbery is. Right, you go in, you take some stuff that doesn't belong to you. It's kind of like when you're reaching your mom's purse to get some extra change because you know she's got something. But what other crimes do you think might be going on there?

Speaker 2:

And don't cheat, don't look at my slide. What other?

Speaker 6:

things. Anybody, any hands, anyone going to be brave?

Speaker 2:

I'm sure there are people who are brave. Are we talking about sex, lives, sex?

Speaker 6:

actions or just the general scene.

Speaker 2:

In I mean possession of a firearm, breaking and entering stuff like that. Excellent, excellent.

Speaker 6:

And Matt can do things blind. I am blind, but there are a lot of crimes that you have to take into consideration. So under 18 USC 2113, bank robbery anyone who uses, by force or violence or intimidation, takes or attempts to take anything from another while they're in a bank or a credit union ends up being a bank robber. One of my favorite lines from the episode deals with another crime, which is the felony murder rule. So how many of you remember Matt who's sitting there and he's like, hey, you don't wanna kill anybody, because then that gets you 15 to 25, right on top of everything.

Speaker 6:

And felony murder under section 125.25 in California amounts basically to murder in the second degree. So if you kill anyone while you're committing a felony, bam, there you go, you got your felony murder. And then also when you receive property or conspiracy. So you might think, oh, I'm going to have conspiracy to commit a murder or commit a felony. In the episode we see that they have a plant inside the bank who's kind of tipping them off and that would constitute a conspirator.

Speaker 6:

Oddly enough impersonating officers when they're making their escape. They dress like New York police officers.

Speaker 2:

Under California law that would be a only therapist in New York City. I'm sorry to hear that. Was she obligated to report suspected criminal activity for a mistress?

Speaker 4:

So good question. There we're getting a privilege issue which, as judges know, can be a very thorny and nuanced area. So, for instance, we have the attorney-client privilege that we probably all know about. We see it in the VCT, physician-patient privilege, which we usually call for medical conditions. But what about the therapist-patient privilege? Would that typically prevent pre-protect communications between the patient and the therapist? So I think I see some nodding. Yes, that is a privilege, but what if the patient reveals to the therapist that they are contemplating criminal activity?

Speaker 4:

They're thinking like oh, I may not be a good I may rob someone, I may want to hurt somebody At that point, is the therapist obligated to report that? Who thinks yes, no, a little over half, who says no, yes, oh, ok, so this is a controversial area of law so we can move forward a little bit. But I think one of the different characterizations is the topic of the movie movie or the TV show. But there's a real world example, very famous case out of California called Tarasov, where a UC Berkeley student named Tatiana Tarasov was killed by someone who was stalking her and was also seeing a therapist where he reported that he was teaching a parking permit. In that case the therapist actually did contact some of the campus police, the campus security, and they retained the individual for a little while but they didn't hear the elucidation so they let him go and a few weeks later, tragically, he killed the staff at a terrace hall.

Speaker 4:

After that that case went all the way up to the California Supreme Court and it was a very dicey issue but ultimately the California Supreme Court said so again the question does a therapist? Is a therapist obligated to report when a patient is contemplating criminal activity? The California Supreme Court said yes. So a lot of therapists were worried, saying well, hey, how are we going to have these technical relationships now? And the court said we are carving out a narrow exception. If someone else is in danger, credibly you've got to report that. So in the years since Paris offering, the professionals in Washington are closely worried because we've brought them in. But it has now become pretty much the law of the land. Many states have followed California, including New York, in providing that if a patient is contributing to a therapist, they report that the therapist has to in turn also report that.

Speaker 2:

Thank you for that. All right, so, Judge McCarron, was the criminalization of the acquittal jury notification. Tell us all about it.

Speaker 5:

Before I do, I'm going to tell my kids and I'm going to embarrass them, so let's talk. Jury notification. Tell us all about it Before.

Speaker 2:

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:

But let's talk jury notification. Let me ask you how many folks in the audience were after seeing Daredevil, seeing the acquittal of Petra Yala. I'm surprised by that number. Raise your hands.

Speaker 6:

Come on, let's see.

Speaker 5:

I'm surprised, okay. Okay, I'm going to talk a little bit about what it means when a jury comes back with a verdict that people think maybe is in defiance of the law. And, specifically, there's a big question whether or not, in this case, the verdict that the jurors rendered in that case in the case of Hector O'Hara was in fact a true legal verdict. Jury notification, as defined by New York, is when a jury acquits a defendant despite evidence proving guilt, based on the jury's belief that the law is unjust or improperly applied. When the facts seem to allow for no other conclusion but guilt and the jury comes back not guilty, that is considered jury nullification. Let's move to the next slide Now. There are many attempts to circumvent this that are built into the system. First of all, jurors take an oath as a panel, an entire group, to follow the law. Then you have jurors taking an oath as individual jurors to follow the law and finally, the next section we have the next fail-safe we have is the bar diat, which is a system whereby each attorney will question the jurors individually to determine if they are the type of juror who will try to go against the law or not follow it. Apart from all of that attorneys will also file motions to determine and prevent one side or the other from arguing things that would lead jurors to perhaps not follow the law. So, in the case of Hector Ayala, was the verdict a product of jury nullification? That's the question, and the answer turns on the issue do the facts allow for no other conclusion but guilt? Let's move to the next one. Well, let's see Everything you saw, jerry Dibble, I want you to forget what you saw as doers, and we're going to talk about just what the jury in that case saw. And let's think about this the people.

Speaker 5:

The prosecution put on one witness and only one witness, and that witness testified. That was Detective Powell and he testified that he was in the 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 perhaps high or just being unruly. So you would think that they would be armed with batons, rubber bullets, tasers, spray, all of those things that normally officers carry in that situation. Now he claims that they see this man running at them and he is, you know, crazy and they have time to identify themselves, but they don't pull out their guns, they don't call their changers. They don't do anything Now, everything. Nothing I should say is that Detective Powell testifies to his corroboration.

Speaker 1:

There's no corroboration, it's a simple testimony of one witness is that Detective Powell testifies to his corroboration.

Speaker 5:

There's no corroboration of the single testimony of one witness. Now the law says that the single testimony of one witness can prove any fact that the right of that witness' testimony is credible and reliable. It must be credible and bring some irreconcilable contradictions. Well, as you can see, there are many irreconcilable contradictions in this story. That Detective Powell tells they're coming right. There's somebody who's running out of nowhere.

Speaker 5:

They don't behave the way one would expect them to behave in that situation and most importantly, there was nothing to corroborate that Hector Ayala was on drugs at the time and that's an important point that they discussed but never really get home, and that was something that Matt Hurd actually gets out of the mailbox. That was his biggest piece of evidence. As I said, I kind of love your bad news a lot right now.

Speaker 2:

Don't fire.

Speaker 5:

Matt Hurd. I know the defense put on Petraiello. Now understand. Mr Ibella took the stand and gave an incredible story and he does not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution has to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He takes the stand, he is corroborated. He is corroborated by Michael Burgos and Gianna Marina His story about my country 8th people in need. Now New York's standard for proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly convinced of the defendant's skill that you have no reasonable doubt.

Speaker 1:

In California we call this an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty.

Speaker 5:

Let's move on to the next one Now. You folks have all been presented with the facts in this case and you've heard the law of 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 Raise your hands? No, raise your hands. That is absolute proof that there is no jury nullification, because you've all followed the law. There is a reasonable belief that it happened when Hector Ayala said it did, and when it comes to interpreting the facts, that is entirely in the purview of the jury. So if you interpret the facts any way you want, that you follow the law. It is not through nullification. Yay, heck, yeah, I got all this. For the sake, thank you.

Speaker 2:

Thank you. So we have about ten minutes left, so I want everyone to speak like.

Speaker 1:

Frank.

Speaker 2:

Castle.

Speaker 3:

So again those subtle questions Can he? Yes, yes, he did. Does it exceed his authority Absolutely? So generally no, mayors cannot declare martial law. Their authority is limited to more local stuff. So they can declare local emergencies and issue curfews and take general civil safety actions, but martial law is not one of them. However, in 1871, the mayor of Chicago voluntarily placed the city under General Philip Sheridan's control after the Great Fire. So it wasn't legally mandated and it was certainly a rare exception. It did happen.

Speaker 3:

Amreya did once declare martial law. So typically, going quickly, federally, a president and a commander-in-chief can declare martial law in extreme cases such as invasion, rebellion, insurrection. We're told Fisk's goal is to complete as many crimes as he can and to get rid of the vigilantes, which is certainly not any of those categories. An example of that would be Lincoln. During the Civil War he declared martial law and sanctioned arbitrary arrest and detention, suspended habeas corpus and he initiated trials by way of military tribunal. And one of those cases made its way up to the Supreme Court in ex parte Milligan, where martial law. The court held that martial law was confined to areas of military operations where war really prevails, so it can't be imposed when the civil courts are actually functioning, so that made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. They looked into whether it was constitutional for Lincoln to commission the military proceedings and it was not, and they got off.

Speaker 3:

State-wise, it's the governor If the state law allows it. Each state has different laws and thresholds, but again it's like civil unrest, natural disasters. An example of that would be Hawaii after Pearl Harbor, and they were actually in martial law for up to three years. It didn't get repealed for a solid amount of time. But generally, yes, it's the state governor, and then the federal and president, because you need to have control of a militia in general in order to activate it.

Speaker 2:

So Judge Neher in two minutes or less.

Speaker 1:

Please explain one of those troubling and some of the most troubling and subversive concepts in all of the law.

Speaker 5:

Quick question how many attorneys are in this audience? Okay, what did you all? Some rhetorical questions. What did you all think of them at that trial in Victoria Island, bringing in, oh, 20 or 30 police reports and saying, here, this is up there, let's examine it and use it as part of our case and argue it. And that was great for White Tide Board. It made us all cheer.

Speaker 5:

But the problem is little problem is we have this right, embedded in the sixth amendment of 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 of goes over to all different parts of a trial. Each state and because this is so important, each state has codified this concept from what's known as the law of courtesy and its exceptions. Let's move on to the next one. The Sixth Amendment explains that the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. And in Crocker they talk about it's the purpose behind the creation of the statement that returns the facts, whether it's hearsay or not.

Speaker 5:

Next Now, the only exceptions. And there's an exception that actually, in New York, was highly mitigated at the turn of the century. This was the business records exception, and in this records exception they talk about which record? If you make a record of an event in the course of business, at a very good time of the event, and it's recorded in a way that is gene trustworthy, this is an exception.

Speaker 5:

And there was a lot of argument all over the country, but specifically in New York, and I'm going to talk about the case there where they talked about whether a police report could be a business record and ultimately, in the case cited up there, johnson v Lutz, which is now a good law case, by the way.

Speaker 5:

In New York. They said specifically police reports are not are inadmissible hearsay, because they are. They're not. They're based on statements from third parties that were not provided during the course of business as part of a business duty. The police officer isn't a business. So it might be a duty, but it's not a business student. So it's very clear that those police reports were hearsay, with no exception. And never would have never seen the light of day in that courtroom ever.

Speaker 2:

Is this a show?

Speaker 6:

if they get divorced. It's my favorite couple All right. How many of you all think that they're going to stay together by a show of hands. Well, if they don't stay together and we can go to the next slide. It is a thing In family law there's far less law, there's much smaller value of law than in criminal law or civil law, because most times it's based on fact-specific findings and it's inequity you want to do what's right.

Speaker 6:

You want to do what's right by people, otherwise they end up as criminals. So if you take all of their property away, you'd be surprised to find that New York is not an equal distribution state like California. Instead it's an equitable division state. So kind of what that means is, you know, you kind of do what's fair to return the parties back to where they were before they got married. But in both states, in both California, under Family Code 2550, or the New York Domestic Relations Law, if people get divorced say our very beloved Vanessa and Finch decided they just can't work it out.

Speaker 6:

You have to decide first when is the date of separation, when are they going to leave? Is it right before Fisk comes back? Is it after he becomes mayor? And then, once you determine that, you have to determine which of their assets were part of an illegal forum or an illegal activity. And then they run into the issue of seize and freeze. This is one of my favorite things. So if by chance I'm married to Mike here and he illegally acquires this Funco, I don't get to claim from the. I don't get to claim in the courts. Ah ah ah, criminal courts. You can't take half of this away because it belongs to me. It's half of my marital assets. Instead, the government gets to take it all.

Speaker 6:

If, on the other hand, we're able to establish that this Funko doll was we got this together before his criminal activity, back when he was working as a plumber, not as an Indian plumber then I'm entitled to 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:

Alright, Judge Nicholas, we'll send a message after.

Speaker 7:

So there is that.

Speaker 1:

I know.

Speaker 7:

Exactly.

Speaker 6:

But in California and the marriage of Rossi, it said hey look, an innocent spouse can'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:

So I can't say that half of it is mine and can't go to the government.

Speaker 6:

However, if we're in California and it's all legal, then he gets half, I get half. In New York you might say you know, mike, you don't look thirsty, she looks thirsty. I'm not talking about our dating money, and so basically that's how it is, but in the end you can go to the next slide. I truly believe that this will be, better than all the states.

Speaker 2:

yet I was asked if this started being an unexpected giveaway, so I said no. I was asked to start a game and he didn't expect a giveaway, so I said no, all right. So, katrina, back to you and back to Fisk. Can he use the NYPD as a person?

Speaker 3:

So, yes, he can and he does, and I previously mentioned that you needed to be in control of a militia in order to activate it, and that's kind of what limits the ability to declare martial law. And Fisk does have a cute little militia here. Fisk does have a cute little militia here. Punisher Merch with their Punisher Tats.

Speaker 3:

He's weaponized the NYPD and in doing so he has broken all of the laws, ethics laws, the Constitution, state and federal criminal statutes like conspiracy, rico, bribery, deprivation of rights under color of law, extortion, murder and attempted murder, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment and at least official misconduct, which is a Class A misdemeanor. In New York of example of this as well, there was a group of Milwaukee policemen that called themselves the Punishers, and they also had Punisher merch and Punisher tats had stickers on their lockers. So we got to see this actually play out in the real world. They were acquitted on the state level and then they were federally indicted for a few of those things I mentioned before. Seven of them ended up being convicted for conspiracy, deprivation of rights, and then I think it was battery and the like, and then the person that they beat and tortured and stomped and stuck a pen through his ear sued the city for $30 million for a civil rights case.

Speaker 3:

So money damages as well In real life. He's probably likely to be fired, likely sued and potentially prosecuted. Judge Owens.

Speaker 8:

Which leads us to Ow Alright. Well, the thing I love about this show, daredevil. It's obviously fiction, but like the best fiction, it does a wonderful job of illustrating real world problems One of the best I've ever seen. So let's go to one clip. Derek, you know, he's the mayor all of a sudden. So how is he not in jail? Well, let's look to history, because there actually have been figures like Kingpin, who everyone knows is a bad dude, everyone knows he's a criminal, but they don't go to jail.

Speaker 8:

So Whitey Bulger those who might be familiar with him. He ran the Winter Hill Gang in Boston. He murdered, racketeered, you name it. He did it. So why was he not in jail Because of this guy? One more click. Well, looks like a little off. Here we go again. That's Whitey Bulger and the writer this guy. Here we go, john Conleyger. And the writer, this guy. Here we go, john conley. So john conley was a long time fbi agent who cut a deal with whitey bulger in exchange for whitey bulger giving information about the italian mafia which then the fbi used to destroy the italian mafia, boston. In exchange, he would give whitey bowler a hedge up, heads up when the feds were coming. He would make sure whitey bulger did not get convicted.

Speaker 8:

If you've ever seen the movie the Departed, that was based in part on Whitey Bulger. The movie Black Mass not as good as the Departed is also based on this whole scenario. This is very similar to. Let's go to the next slide. Here we go. Ray or Ray Nadim right Now Ray Nadim is more sympathetic than John Connolly, but he did make the same deal. He made the same deal with the kingpin that the kingpin would provide him with information. He would use it to go after gang figures. And we know how it ended for Ray Nadim Not well.

Speaker 8:

So what if Ray Nadim had survived? And what if Ray Nadim had actually testified in court? Well, here's the problem with that. We'll go to the next slide. There's a long history of police officers who have engaged in this conduct, which leads to the overturning of criminal convictions the Rampart scandal in Los Angeles, which was the basis of the movie Training Day. This guy, rafael Perez, led the crash unit in that area. Over 100 convictions overturned because they were based on either evidence he gathered or testimony he gave. Once you have a dirty cop involved, it's almost impossible to sustain those convictions. Here's probably a better example Mark Furman from OJ.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, exactly Bad guy.

Speaker 8:

Found OJ's glove Wrong guy for LAPD to find OJ's glove. At the trial we heard about all the misconduct that he committed and, not surprisingly, we had an acquittal in that case. So, even though Kingpin is obviously fiction, it does a wonderful job of capturing why someone like the Kingpin who crushed that guy's head in the last episode was like this is Disney Plus and he's crushing someone's head. It's like next up moana. You know I'm really surprised by that, but it's. But it does a great job of capturing those issues. So, yes, the answer is there is a reason why kim kent is not in jail, because law enforcement yeah, all right.

Speaker 2:

Well, that is all of our content, so we have time for questions, but first a round of applause for our panelists. We have some information to get to in that amount of time, so if anyone has any questions, feel free to pop up to the mic or raise it up. We've got a line going Alright. Fantastic, we're going to pop up to the mic for a break. Oh, we got a line going All right, fantastic.

Speaker 2:

Hi, I come to your panel for your comment. Anyway, I am a super proud New Yorker and so I love the street level hero which is Peter Caradoy. So I have two questions. One is how does Daredevil's status as attorney slash simultaneous anonymous, basically sanctioned vigilante? Have you been?

Speaker 3:

land privileged.

Speaker 2:

Another question is how does the state-specific law of New York shape the flavor of the plot in the series? How does it unfold a series of examples? Ooh, All right. Who wants to take a turn-in-client privilege? Michael, you handled that in the presentation. We'll move to that one.

Speaker 7:

Sure, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question about the turn-in-client privilege?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, just like there goes an attorney who is also an anonymous vigilante who comes into contact with people and information whenever at the same time.

Speaker 7:

So just the basic problem of gender and sex, just whatever you know, like, for example, like gladiator when he basically was able to get him, you know he was probably going to go to prison for life, but he was able to basically help him out and get a mental health and, um, yeah. So then he became go up in the storm making costumes and so I think having that knowledge just does kind of it's um, you know, as far as, like you know, with gladiator, you know he's not the client until Matt goes into the jail and basically says I'm here to represent you, so anything before that, because basically the attorney can have privilege. You need to basically have a person who's seeking an attorney in a confidential conversation and actually get in seeking legal advice. And so when you're a vigilante swinging around beating people up, they're usually not asking seeking legal advice. So when your vigilante's swinging around beating people up, they're usually not asking for legal advice.

Speaker 2:

I think it would be interesting if he was a prosecutor, like if it was slipped because there's a lot of fruit in a poisonous tree. Yeah, when he was a prosecutor I think actually that's part of what got him disbarred.

Speaker 7:

Oh, that's right, I knew.

Speaker 2:

We might not get to part two, just so we can get to some other questions. Thank you.

Speaker 4:

Hello, what does real world law say about the dimensions of cells as folks acting outside of the appointed law force to you know help others or go out there to do bad things?

Speaker 2:

Anything like that. Don't do it. Help others or go out there and do bad things.

Speaker 6:

Don't do it.

Speaker 8:

In New York. I've definitely criticized, but they were the guardian angels.

Speaker 5:

Yeah, the guardian angels they were. I remember back in the day because I was a prostitute here, when they were going strong and they didn't have to be prostitutes.

Speaker 2:

Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it.

Speaker 4:

The idea generally is we don't trust private citizens to take a law that they don't understand. We will trust police law enforcement because they're sworn, they're trained. That's the idea. There are some other exceptions where people get away with certain things, but don't believe Liam Neeson in taking it.

Speaker 7:

Not in the right way. I mean, the comics make it easy because we know Daredevil's a good guy, we know Batman's a good guy, and so when they go beat somebody up, that's them doing a good service. But it's a lot murkier in the real world and motivations are never clear.

Speaker 2:

Thank you. Just a quick question for those of us who are limited Do we get CLE credit? Are we a credit? So my question was is what are your thoughts? Slash, how realistic is how the Frank Castle trial in the original show went?

Speaker 4:

So that's very similar to people who remember Bernie Getz from the late 80s. There are some very similarities. Bernie Getz was someone who was a vigilante running a subway I believe it was. Three teenagers approached him the robber and he pulled out a gun and shot him. The shot was two dead, I think one was paralyzed, and he was a classic case of self-defense, as we argued. Ultimately he was actually acquitted or caught correctly, and this became a seminal case for the concept of self-defense. Because the idea is, yes, you can defend yourself, but it has to be proportional to the threat. So if someone comes at you with a knife, you're not supposed to look out like a machine gun or a zoo gun. It's still all proportional. But one of the lasting effects of the Bernie Gantz case was that many of the public supported it because they thought, hey, we don't feel that we're safe. So is it realistic? It's possible.

Speaker 2:

There are some real world precedents for that. All right, I think we have time for maybe one or two more.

Speaker 4:

Oh, and I'm also possible, there are some real world um hi, um, Is there a context where Spider-Man can testify with his mask on and be like I'm Spider-Man? Is that?

Speaker 6:

I'm from New York. Is that in any?

Speaker 5:

universe.

Speaker 8:

I can take that no. Well, actually, in national security cases, the answer is yes. There's a very rare exception in national security cases where a witness actually can't be masked. It's extremely rare and the Supreme Court has set a are justifying against them and that's really not for children.

Speaker 5:

So we talked to many children who have justified against their perpetrators, but they never do.

Speaker 8:

We have a great area to talk about yeah, matt, we got Matt Murdock behind you. Mr Murdock, I'm sorry.

Speaker 2:

We got the not-other-play to continue.

Speaker 3:

I'll come talk to you. I'm just waiting to go jacked oh.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Joshua Gilliland

Host