Review of Daredevil Born Again episodes "Heaven's Half Hour" and "Optics"

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Retired) and Joshua Gilliland, Esq., discuss the first episodes of Daredevil Born Again. Join them for a discussion of murder, attempted murder, victim statements, sentencing, ethical concerns with motions in limine that discuss client confidences, defense of others, and self-defense. 

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction to Daredevil Born Again
• 1:37 Foggy's Death and Bullseye Confrontation
• 9:40 Legal Analysis of Murdoch's Actions
• 15:45 NYC Mayor Recall Procedures
• 20:15 White Tiger and Subway Incident
• 29:40 Motion in Limine and Ethical Issues
• 40:22 Vigilantes, Jury Selection, and Self-Defense
• 54:33 Catholicism in Daredevil and WonderCon Announcement

Transcript

Joshua Gilliland: 0:02

Hello everyone, my name is Joshua Gilliland. One of the founding attorneys of the Legal Geeks With me is retired Judge Matt Sciarino, from New York, now happily in Florida, and we're going to talk about Daredevil Born Again, episodes one and two. Your Honor, how are you today?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 0:25

I am great I got to play some bonus pickleball today, so it's been a fun day.

Joshua Gilliland: 0:31

Yeah, we have very different lives now.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 0:37

I'm enjoying the fact that I have to physically think for a few minutes every day, to think what day it actually is.

Joshua Gilliland: 0:45

You, lucky man. Yeah, that's a long ways off for me, but congratulations Thank you.

Joshua Gilliland: 0:52

You worked very hard to get there, congratulations. So let's Daredevil born again. There's a lot of New York law at play at this, and I'm a California attorney, and while nothing that we're going to talk about is actual legal advice because we're talking about a fictional TV show with fictional characters lawyers don't wear fatigues and go out fighting crime for community service. We just don't do that but here we are to talk about born again. Now, I think as a point of order, daredevil season three was effectively the born again story arc, so they're them calling this born again again. It's a little weird, but here we go. Honor general impressions of the series.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 1:45

I'm very happy that it's back. I very much like the Netflix series. While season one was the best, I think, of the three seasons, it took a little bit of a downturn In season two. It came back up In season three. In my opinion, it was nice to see the characters again. Opinion. It was nice to see um the characters again. It was nice to see karen page again and and and I'm so happy that you know it's the same cast um, they were so good in the netflix series and and it's it's really nice to see them really all back they had amazing esprit de corps and the characters.

Joshua Gilliland: 2:26

Well, the characters have the esprit de corps. The actors have an amazing chemistry that just binds them all together, and part of that chemistry is they have a law firm that's named after the two lawyers and a non-lawyer. And I'll just go out and say that would not fly you, you can't.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 2:44

Is she still a non-lawyer? Because I almost got the opinion that she's done law school by this point and she you know whether it was at night or you know, they don't really address it, but I almost got the feeling that she's now a lawyer, but I don't know. They really don't address that. Address that. Yeah, clearly, if she's not a lawyer, her name can't be in the in on the masthead. In in New York prohibits. The only time that you can have someone that is on the masthead that is no longer with us is if they were artists, if they're a deceased partner that was a partner on the masthead before he or she died. Other than that, you can't have accountants or any other person on the masthead.

Joshua Gilliland: 3:32

Exactly so, barring the fact that she took the bar in between the last seven years, she can't be part of the name of the law firm, like it just doesn't work that way. I believe in all 50 states that would not fly. So but I haven't researched all 50 states. That's just a gut feeling that that just doesn't work because it implies the unauthorized practice of law and that's a no-no. We don't want people who are not lawyers putting themselves out as attorneys. So so if it, if it's still the end of from season three, it's a no-no. If she got her jd and took the bar, cool, but let's see if they drop that at some point. Moving on, this is an amazing intro, with murder at the bar and we have Bullseye come back and there's a killing spree. There's at least eight people killed and your Honor what degree of murder would this be?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 4:44

It's going to be basically second degree and or first degree, depending if they can get it as to a terrorist act. Because of this, the sheer amount of murders that took place, but in as much as first degree, had capital punishment, which is declared unconstitutional by New York. For the most part, second degree murder is your top charge in New York state and there would be multiple counts because so many people were killed and because of that there would be other charges that would go along with the murder in the second degree.

Joshua Gilliland: 5:18

Yeah, it's brutal. Foggy might have been an intentional hit. So if there is a's a mur, would that? Could that be murder one under new york?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 5:30

murder, one in new york, for the most part was was, was an enhancement dealing with the killing of a law enforcement officer. Um so, and it had the the capital punishment element to it. So when one fell, the other kind of fell by the wayside as well. There's other charges that, because of the mass murder aspect of it that they could bring, and you know he clearly would be facing the maximums in New York, which would be a lifetime sentence without parole, which is the highest sentence that a defendant can be sentenced to.

Joshua Gilliland: 6:10

California law is different. So it's interesting to hear that comparison, because there's intent here, I believe, for at least Foggy, the others well. It then varies because, again, if he's not intentionally going out for specific individuals, but it's just a mass casualty event, that's where lawyers would start trying splitting hairs. Foggy is killed and let's just put this out there, there's spoilers with this. So please, if you're just realizing that we're going to detail now, spoilers ahead.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 6:51

Foggy is no longer a member of the firm of Murdoch, page and Nelson.

Joshua Gilliland: 6:59

No, and the actor is just so likable with the way that the fact that screen time is so minimal in episode one and his death is so, uh, personal and hurtful, with uh karen page over him trying to keep him from bleeding out. Just very well done for an impactful uh opening. Uh. But you have matt murdoch on the rooftop with the killer and they're in full-blown mutual con um conflict at this point, with beating the crap out of each other. And when foggy dies, you know there's the yelling of like why. And Murdoch pushes Bullseye off the roof. How would you categorize that?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 7:57

With the height of the roof, it was clear that I think his intent was to end Bullseye's life. I was really sorry to see Foggy go too. He certainly was one of my favorite characters. He was one of the most likable lawyers that has ever been on the small screen and he was a good example of a lawyer that really wanted to always kind of do the right thing. So it's sad when one of those rare characters of a lawyer that is someone likable is gotten rid of. But clearly Matt was. There's no doubt in my mind and you know clearly his lawyer, if he was ever to be charged with this type of case, would argue that he didn't intend to to kill him, that it was in the heat of the moment, that they were both fighting, that he was justified and in defending himself and in and that they slipped and fell off the roof. But but it's clear from um you know later things and his discussions with kingpin later that he intended to to kill Bullseye.

Joshua Gilliland: 9:05

I think they could knock it down to manslaughter because of the passion of the moment, absolutely, absolutely. His friend just died. I think there would also be a real risk of jury nullification, with a jury going. We're OK with this.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 9:21

Yeah, I don't even see a grand jury indicting him for it. With as egregious as bullseye's action were, I would see even a grand jury saying no true bill and not indicting him for any serious charges there.

Joshua Gilliland: 9:37

Which is not how the system is supposed to work. But I could see a DA just going no, we're not, we're just not, and that's not how the law should be administered, but that's how it could play out. So let's get to the victim statement for the sentencing, which I thought was fascinating and well done. And again, not my area of practice. I'm a new discovery guy. I do civil litigation Like this is not my world. The number of criminal appearances I had as a young attorney is maybe three, you know. So again, just not not my wheelhouse, but your Honor, you did this for many years as a judge.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 10:26

I did and I've had many sentences and as part of a sentence in New York. It's very, very well defined in our criminal procedure law as to the steps involved. The prosecutor gives a statement. If a victim is going to give a statement. There were various victim rights acts that were passed during the governorship of Governor Pataki in New York and the victims have a right to give a statement as well. And if the victim is going to give a statement, they do have to give notice to give a statement as well. And if the victim is going to give a statement, they do have to give notice that they do intend to make a statement. And then, after the victim's statement, the defense lawyer has the right to make a statement. And then the defendant, under our law, also has the right to make a statement and in fact has to be asked do you wish to make a statement? And they have to affirmatively say yes or no and then make their statement. But they have an absolute right to make a statement.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 11:33

There's no requirements with regards to how long any one statement has to be or how short any one statement has to be. You know you certainly can. As a judge, I would be allowed to run my courtroom and if the statement got out of, if it was no longer relevant to the proceedings or to the actions, you could tell the defendant to either address the case or I'm going to be ending your statement, and in some situations that did happen. Yeah, with victims too, you sometimes have to kind of calm down, and there were some incredibly passionate statements that I presided over from victims over the years that I can still recall some of those statements. They're horrific, and after all of those statements are made is when it is then up to the judge to pronounce his or her sentences of the defendant. But the judge has to listen to all of those statements beforehand. And then, of course, there's certain minimums and maximums that the law puts forth that the judge has to take into account when he or she is sentencing.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 13:04

But as long as it's a legal sentence, it is done right after all of those statements generally, and the judge sometimes makes a statement as well as part of the sentencing, as the judge did in this case. I think he made a very appropriate statement and he sentenced consecutively to life sentences without parole, which basically means that they would be served one after the other, after the other. Some of those might be on appeal, made to run concurrently, which means at the same time, because generally if it's a separate act it's supposed to be consecutive. If it's not a separate act, so you can make the argument that this was all part of one act. I think for each of the people killed, because there was some time in between, that it was purely appropriate to do it consecutively as separate acts. So I think that also when it's egregious like this, it's less chance that an appellate court's going to overturn it.

Joshua Gilliland: 14:10

What did you think about the procedural depiction of Murdoch's testimony on having the defendant give a response and then the judge's decision? How did that play out in your mind? For this looked good for a comic book tv show. Yeah, I, I thought it was incredibly accurate.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 14:34

Actually, you know, clearly, clearly, one of the showrunners that's dealing, or the legal advisors, um, you know, kind of at least looked up the procedures in the CPL and had them all follow the procedures, because it was very, very accurate to what I would see on any given day in a New York court.

Joshua Gilliland: 14:54

Impressive yeah, it's.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 14:57

It's nice to hear the courtroom depiction goes like yeah, that, that looked good yeah yeah, I, I was, you know, because you're looking for that, as as a lawyer you're, you're kind of looking for where they go off script um and and they were. They were very much in line with the criminal procedure laws of new york York during that sentencing.

Joshua Gilliland: 15:18

Good, good, I'm glad to hear that because not something I've ever participated in. So seeing that and hearing that is a good thing. So cool, very cool. Let's take a look at the other big legal issue. Is there's a recall in New York City for the mayor? Now, as you know, being a part of a Western state or from the progressive era politics, we have recall procedures in California. We've had two attempts at recalling a governor. One was successful, one was crushed pretty effectively before it really went far. And when I saw this was part of the story element for the series, I did a little double take because I wasn't expecting a recall story from New York. Can you walk us through how that could actually happen or if this is accurate or what the situation is?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 16:28

New York does not have a recall procedure for either the governor or the mayor and I don't believe that there's any kind of recall provision for any elected official in the state of New York. Interestingly, a bit of a call to have the governor remove the mayor and that is a procedure in New York and it's historically has been threatened twice and on both times, when it was very clear that the mayor was going to be removed, they did resign. One of these is the famous Jimmy Walker. There's a movie about it. It's a. It's a in 1932 was when it happened and one was William O'Dwyer in 1950. And one was William O'Dwyer in 1950.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 17:39

And there was some talk of Eric Adams that the governor might remove the mayor from office because the mayor was accused of basically taking some bribes from Turkish Turkish, the country of Turkey officials and Donald Trump pardoned him for that action, so it never went to trial. He clearly has said that he is not guilty of any of these crimes and he's never been proven guilty of any of these crimes, but there was a bit of a call to remove him. The procedure for removal is very weird. The procedure for removal is very weird. It's basically the governor has to give her intention in this case her, because the governor of New York is currently a female would give her intention to present a defense to the governor. It does not in any way put forth what this procedure would look like. Does he go to her office and beg for mercy? Is it done in public? No one knows what this procedure is, but he has the right to present his defense to the governor, in whatever form that might be, and then at the end of that suspension the governor can remove the mayor.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 19:10

There would not then be an election. So again, that was different from what they did in the show, because in the show they had a recall followed by an election where the kingpin is elected to be mayor. Another spoiler there um, the, the public advocate, which is the third elected post in new york city governments. The first one is the mayor, the second one is the controller, the third one is the public advocate. The public advocate would become the acting mayor and would, I believe, finish out the term. Or there would be then a special election done at the next November and New York has ranked voting, so that was adopted a couple of elections ago. So then it would be an election for the mayor thereafter.

Joshua Gilliland: 19:57

So then it would be an election for the mayor thereafter. So by way of comparison for California with the gubernatorial recalls that we have the election. It's two elections at once. So part one on the ballot is should there be a recall, yes or no?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 20:23

And then the next part is who do you want?

Joshua Gilliland: 20:24

to be governor the terminator. Yeah, I want the terminator, and that's how. And so, when, when schwarzenegger was elected as governor to to knock out gray davis, there were people who voted yes to recall and then they voted for the candidate of their choice, whether it was uh gray davis or uh, the lieutenant governor, or schwarzenegger there were. There were a bunch of people on the ballot. It turned into uh craziness and that's how schwarzenegger won and then goes on to win in the next general election as well. There was like a brief attempt to recall him and that went nowhere because Californians were a little sick of it. Newsom had a recall effort. The current governor and the opposition was able to get it on the ballot for the recall, and the political strategy for that recall election was for all the newsome uh supporters to vote no on the recall and they said leave it blank for uh, like an alternate candidate and no grand. I voted for. I did not leave part two blank, uh, uh, but I voted no, just because I'm not a fan of the zaniness uh that can happen from recalls. I don't know if it will happen again in the history of California. Those are the two that we had, unless there's some sneaky one, but I thought Gray Davis was the first governor to get recalled in California. So what they depict in the show is different than what I've experienced as a California voter, because this was preordained that there's a recall. As a California voter, because this was preordained, that there's a recall, so like they met that hoop already and it makes it sound like it was just a very different procedure At play For a recall to take place.

Joshua Gilliland: 22:31

So, which brings us to Some of the other many issues, is we're introduced to another vigilante whose name is white tiger. This is a marvel character I actually know very little about, uh, but again another street level vigilante and they rank them up there with uh, you know, there's spider-man, you have punisher, so like those are power man, iron fist, jessica jones would be those street level type type heroes that people interact with more so than, say, a captain america, uh, uh, who is more the Avengers level threat. So we see a subway scene where we have two individuals. It looks like they're beating up a third individual. The Good Samaritan comes in, he's on the phone, ends the phone call and intercedes and in that fight one of the individuals who was the assailant gets killed by a subway train turns out those are police officers.

Joshua Gilliland: 23:49

Multiple issues here. First off, did hector have a duty to rescue the victim and I'll just say there's no a duty to rescue the victim and I'll just say there's no general duty to rescue? So the answer to that is no. But we do have the third party defense of others and your Honor. Could you walk us through how that works in New York and whether or not this would apply to this character?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 24:16

The white tiger at that point was not acting in his white tiger identity. He was basically looked like going home. It was in civilian clothes and he stumbles upon two people clearly beating a third person. Up to the point of it looked like they might beat him to death. He had absolutely no legal obligation possibly a moral obligation to rescue this other person. Maybe a moral obligation to call the police. Maybe a moral obligation to call the police. The two police officers that were beating this person to death did not have any markings that they were police officers. They did not at any point say stop, police, or give any indication that they were police officers, and at no point when the White Tiger got involved did they say stop, we're police officers. So he was, in my mind, somewhat justified to use physical force to stop the potential killing of this third party. He also clearly did not intend for that other police officer to get hit by the train. He was just pushed and he fell and he was hit by the train because the train was coming at that particular time.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 25:58

So he would have a very good and I'm sure as we'll see in the trial justification defense, because he is subsequently arrested and charged with the murder of a police officer. That would be murder in the first degree and his defense would be A. I didn't know that they were police officers, I just thought that they were trying to beat up this person and I was trying to protect and save this other person's life, and that is one of the. He would have been entitled to a justification charge and the prosecutor would have to prove that he was not justified beyond the reasonable doubt excellent and great scene I mean fights well choreographed very, very well done scene.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 26:54

Yeah.

Joshua Gilliland: 26:55

Yeah, it looks fantastic and which is again one of the strongest parts of the show is the physical stunts that they do From behind the scenes footage from season one. They do a lot of work and that attention to detail continues and that's a great thing to see. So I started thinking about the motion elimination. So, just backing up on how we get to that scene, uh, matt has a retired police officer, last name of cherry, who plays private eye and does investigations much like, say, say, a Jessica Jones would be doing, and Cherry goes out and finds out some information and during interviewing the wife, where the other partner at the law firm is talking to the wife, cherry goes into the bedroom and basically conducts a search of the client's house and finds a box under the bed that has the white tiger costume and the magical amulet that gives additional powers of some kind. So, first off, just as if you're a superhero costume vigilante, I would hope they would take better care to not have the costume just that easy to find. Like there's no Batcave, like there's no false wall, it's a box under the bed that doesn't seem to be. Again, if you're going to play crime fighter, that doesn't seem to be a good plan because you literally can just trip over it. It also raises the issue of had the police bothered to search the guy's house yet? And this makes me think no, because that wasn't taken into any custody. So again, that just seems weird, problematic.

Joshua Gilliland: 29:01

But after that we then jump to this motion. First, a client meeting where Murdoch confronts his client about this and raises the issue of should the client have told Murdoch by the way, I'm also a vigilante of should the client have told Murdoch. By the way, I'm also a vigilante. There are issues with asking a client hey, do you commit other crimes? That could get bad. But we then jump to a court in chambers, courtroom scene, where a motion in limine was brought to suppress this evidence because the prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Your Honor, what were? I want to get your thoughts on this, but one of the big issues that I had with it is, if the state didn't know about it yet, did Matt commit any ethical violations by disclosing it in a motion in limine that his client is also a vigilante, which is a crime, in order to suppress it? So again, I think it's problematic. But what was your reaction to this?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 30:17

Yeah, they clearly started the scene somewhat in the middle.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 30:21

So we don't know if the state had already become aware of his identity Somehow. I doubt it for the same reasons that you just stated. It does not appear that there was a search of the apartment, because clearly, if there was a search of the apartment, they might have found this emblem, the apartment, because clearly, if there was a search of the apartment they might have found this, this emblem, um, or if there was a search, they might not have known that, what that? Yeah, I find that hard to believe, but that they didn't know what that costume or emblem meant and just left it there, um. So it's, unless there was, you know, a, a precursory search of the apartment thereafter and that's how they know that he is the White Tiger.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 31:05

But I don't think any of that happened. So I think Matt figures that they would find out soon enough, so possibly then made the motion in Lemonay, which I also find to be a bit weird in that I think he would have the motion prepared and ready to file but not actually do it, because he is kind of disclosing a privileged conversation that he had with his client by bringing those facts, unless he got the client's permission to make that motion, and none of that is before us. So I think that it was just some poor writing in that they didn't really consider all of those legal issues and they had him make the motion. But yeah, there were some ethical problems with regards to Sam, because he clearly is disclosing something that he learned in his conversations with his client and those conversations are privileged and it's his client's privilege. It's not his privilege, so he would not have the right to disclose that.

Joshua Gilliland: 32:20

It's. Yeah, it was just this ethical minefield that is created by this motion and eliminate, to suppress that evidence. And if it's come out again, if it's come out in the press, there are new issues on top of that and we now have the Spider-Man no Way Home scenario, but I don't think that's happened yet. I don't think this is public information. So the fact that a motion eliminated is brought seems ethically problematic. It's theoretical that it could have been on an exhibit list and that's why murdoch brought the um motion and lemonade, but this entire again we come in in the middle of it and it's just weird.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 33:15

Uh, I mean, it's clearly it was a secret identity, because if, if it wasn't a secret identity and and if it was common knowledge that this person was the white tiger, it would have been all over the press. The DA would be kind of involved in the issue of it being the white tiger. So it clearly is a secret identity and as such, it would be clearly privileged. So, yeah, I think either Matt made a ethical blunder or it was just not something that the writers took into consideration.

Joshua Gilliland: 33:56

I also wonder if, having a client who's a vigilante and the prosecution's trying to bring that out, if it raises the flag of bad character evidence now and at least in California and in federal courts, you know you're not supposed to bring evidence of bad character because it's prohibited. On the flip side, if the opposing party brings out evidence of good character, then the bad character evidence can be used to rebut that. Uh, have evidence that could show that there was conduct that was well, it's just as. That's just how he is. Uh, you know he he fights, you know he beats people up. Therefore, you know he's guilty of beating these people up like it's.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 34:56

That's why bad character evidence is not allowed to come in which is what his in limine motion was, was was it was it was to. It was to prohibit the the prosecution from using, uh, evidence of prior bad acts. And and new york is, um, unlike most states, it has no code of evidence um, they, they have created, uh, in recent vintage, what is New York's guide to evidence, which is created by the Court of Appeals and other people that sit on this guide board, and it's a statement of what the evidence is based on, the case law, and it's almost taken the position of a code to some extent. But the law in New York dealing with prior bad acts is from a case it's called the People versus Molyneux, so it's called the Molyneux exception to prior bad acts coming in.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 36:01

And there are certain things which you can make an argument for allowing these prior bad acts into evidence. If they show certain things motive, if they show opportunity, intent, preparation for some common scheme or plan, knowledge, the identity. If these prior bad acts are and here's where I think they might have been allowed in to show the identity of him as the white tiger and that this was part of his vigilantism, and to show his identity as the white tiger, maybe, arguably, a prosecutor would argue that that's why we have to allow in these prior bad acts if they are even bad acts Is acting as a vigilante a bad act, arguably because you don't have the right to do some of the things that you're doing.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 37:02

But so you know it was not a bad tactical decision to get a ruling on prohibiting.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 37:09

But you know it goes back to I think it was a little bit premature to make that motion. The way a Molyneux motion usually would come before me is the prosecutor would make the motion that we want to use these prior bad acts because of they go to show motive, they go to show intent, whatever it is, and then the defense would say that the probative value is so far outweighed by the prejudice it's going to show against my client, which is the exact words that Matt used. And those are the legal words that the judge would consider. And I was happy to see that the judge, I think, made the correct legal ruling in this case. I didn't think he was. And after that argument is made is when the court would rule. And then, if the defendant were to possibly present a defense which in some way makes those prior bad acts relevant again, it's possible that the court could allow the prosecutor in their rebuttal case to bring in those prior bad acts, and that's usually the way it would come before the jury.

Joshua Gilliland: 38:21

Yeah, there's thank you for that explanation because there's a connection. Yeah, there's thank you for that explanation because there's a connection between prior bad acts and prejudicial effect versus probative value, and I would think you would actually make both arguments in order for a belt and suspenders. But again, it's a highly problematic scene. Highly problematic scene. Uh, I do think the right result is made, reached by the judge. Uh, because this does look like the, the da is just trying to, you know, pile it on and in this world, which is said a couple years in the future. So I think it's you know, since they make reference that fisk was going to be the 112th mayor. Uh, also, the you know, and they're on 110 right now.

Joshua Gilliland: 39:10

Uh, the effects of, uh, captain america, brave new world. I think that election was 2028, uh, so maybe 2024 in mcu, but I think it's 2028 after Infinity War. And how would people view vigilantes in that world where, you know you had half the population disappear, turn into dust and then come back and the survivors lived for five years in that world, from 2017 to 2022, I think is their timing of of, uh, the blip. So people might be okay with vigilantes and superheroes, because there's been alien invasions more than one. Uh, they might have not have a problem with the avengers at this point in time because of what happened. On the flip side, it depends what the vigilante is doing like. If people are team punisher, that's. That's not a good place to be from a civil society, um. But if there's rampant crime and you have again vigilantes tipping the balance so people feel safe, they might be okay with it and it might not be bad character in somebody's eyes. So bring that up. If the vigilante is viewed as popular could backfire from a prosecutorial point of view.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 40:45

And clearly because they did do a lot of scenes with the man on the street as part of the campaign coverage, where you had a lot of people saying that the reason that they were voting for the kingpin was because of the rampant crime and that the only people doing anything about it was the vigilantes and the people in the suits and that the cops were unable to take care of this.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 41:13

So you could very well have a large jury pool that is not anti-vigilante and I'm sure when they do jury selection, that would be part of the voir dire that Matt would engage in is, even though he got this favorable ruling, he would know that it's still possible that somewhere down the line maybe the press or someone else is going to make the connection that this is the white tiger. So one of the things I want to find in my jury selection, or jurors that are somewhat sympathetic towards the vigilantes, if in fact it comes out that the person that's being accused of these crimes is in fact a vigilante, yeah, it'd be like if one of the jurors said like yeah, a vigilante saved me.

Joshua Gilliland: 42:06

Okay, which vigilante saved you, the white tiger? We thank you for your excuse. Bye, thanks, as opposed to again. Yeah, spider-man saved me, cool. Okay, thank you for your service, but there could be a category where it's on the line, but I would think the prosecution would want no one who's been saved by a vigilante or any superhero.

Joshua Gilliland: 42:39

Almost I would not want on on my jury if I'm the prosecutor in this kind of case which could be really hard because of the battle of new york with loki and the avengers, because a lot of people would qualify for that and a lot of uh that they survived it. Uh to uh. You know the battle in uh infinity war uh that takes place in new york by dr strange's house. So I mean, and this is a world where there's been lots of activity in new york with heroes, so that's going to be the jury questionnaire might be the simple way to knock that out before even getting to void ear, but it's a fascinating discussion to think about how that trial could look.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 43:33

You almost have every citizen of New York in the Marvel universe experiencing some form of post-traumatic stress at this point, I would think yeah, everyone's going to be afraid of loud noises because any flash of light in the sky would would freak them out.

Joshua Gilliland: 43:48

Especially, like the United States has been lucky that the number of actual battles that have taken place on our soil it's limited to the Civil War, the civil war 9-11 and a couple weird incursions during world war ii with a. I know the balloon attack. You know that set some trees on on fire in oregon, like there's there's not a lot of right.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 44:21

I think there was a japanese sub that took a couple of shots on the West Coast and there was a U-boat or two off of Long Island. But yes, clearly the United States has been very lucky that it has very large oceans on both sides. With September 11th, you know, you did have a hyper tense population for a very long time because you know we had we had military planes flying over for weeks and we didn't have the usual commercial planes because they were all grounded at that point. So the military planes when they went over you, it was a very foreign experience for a lot of New Yorkers.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 45:17

And you know so really, if you up that by the scale of the MC universe happenings in New York, by the scale of the mc universe happenings in in new york, you would have a, a populace that is pretty high strung.

Joshua Gilliland: 45:29

Yeah, because you think about the. You know the events of the other daredevil series or the defenders it's like. So there are, there's a ninja cult running around, like people are going to notice that stuff and it's going to be in collective memory, um, you know whether it's 20 years in the past or 10 or 5, uh, or last week, like people are going to be on their toes, uh, about those type of events. So, uh, again, jury selection could get weird, uh, but if you're at the point where no one in new york can sit on the jury because everyone's been saved, that again it can tip the other direction. You know they.

Joshua Gilliland: 46:11

They highlight in, uh, you know the hawkeye series, that after the initial battle of new york there were a lot of people who were upset at the avengers. You know blame the people who saved you. But by the time of the Hawkeye series, you know there's the Rogers musical. People have swung the other way, uh. So, again, if there's more than one musical on Broadway about superheroes, you might have a problem, problem in finding a jury's pool that can meet everyone's needs.

Joshua Gilliland: 46:49

So with that we get. You know, the victim of the subway attack is hard to find and the police officers track him down and Matt figures out where the guy is as well. Through a series of events, matt gets to him first and Matt, as Matt Murdock gets the guy out of the apartment. Cherry is going to pick him up and Matt is waiting for the two, I'm going to say, corrupt police officers.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 47:22

Yeah, I think that if you have any doubt as to whether or not the police officers were justified in beating this person on the subway station when the white tiger got involved, that doubt is clearly taken away from you with regards to this scene, because they were clearly going to finish the job and get rid of this person who they failed to get rid of at the subway station, and you know, really it was a hit job and they clearly are dirty cops.

Joshua Gilliland: 48:00

Which is frustrating for police officers who watch this and go like guys, no, no, we don't have Punisher tattoos. No, now, granted, matt can't see I don't know if he can sense that there's a Punisher tattoo on the corrupt officer's wrist was uh troubling. Um, it also highlights how marvel comics did not like seeing police officers start putting punisher logos on, you know, tops of police cars.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 48:33

Uh, they didn't like that and they wrote it into stories about the punisher not liking it and I will not comment on the amount of police officers that I know that have punisher decals on on their vehicles I'm going to just say not okay, uh, not okay.

Joshua Gilliland: 48:53

That said, you know, my mom was a paramedic, grew up with lots of police officers as, uh, family friends, along with firefighters. So not okay firefighters, so not okay. That said, so we have this fight that takes place and they rough up murdoch and then they're going to execute him on his knees, gun to his head, and he says please don't do this. And there's debate if he's talking to the corrupt police officers or to himself, because we end with an incredible fight scene where he beats the snot out of those two. He gets beat up too. So there's his blood at the scene. Your honor, what's your thoughts on this being self-defense?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 49:46

First off, I don't think there's a character in the Marvel Universe that gets beat up as badly or as much as Matt Murdock. He really really gets beat up a lot and not just like a little bit, but I'm always amazed that he can come back after all of these beatings. He clearly again would have a justification defense. They were clearly trying to kill him so he would put forth a defense that he was justified in doing what he did. And again, if he's ever tried and if the series goes along with some of the comic books, I think he does get tried under the King, in the Kingpin administration.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 50:36

There's also, you know, spoiler alert that there there is a, there's a series where he becomes the DA under the Kingpin administration. So it's curious to see which way they're going to go, because they're clearly getting their source materials from a couple of really really good comic series of the Daredevil. But he would again the prosecutor would have to prove that he was not justified to take the actions that he did beyond a reasonable doubt before they would be allowed to consider whether or not he was guilty of the crimes that he's alleged to to have done yeah, thank you.

Joshua Gilliland: 51:17

It's a it's very well done. I mean, it's a very well done fight. I saw one person on, I think, on tiktok go. Did murdoch kill those guys? I don't think so, because that's very not matt murdoch.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 51:30

Yeah he, which is why you know when, when he um tosses bullseye, or you know off the roof core, matt Murdock is a struggling Catholic.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 51:49

You know and you know all the daredevil imagery and and and and it's it's a very you know religious undertones to to daredevil. You know he is very much struggles with the actions that he takes. There's always a priest involved in all the series where he either goes for confession or for support. You know he really is a good moral Catholic who really kind of understands you know punishment and virtue and you know it's it's a it's got a lot of religious undertones to it and it's not an overly religious show. But but you clearly sense, uh yeah, that that that struggling irish catholic um, kind of kind of being in matt murdoch yeah it's.

Joshua Gilliland: 52:46

You have him going and hanging out by a church hearing the singing that's taking place inside and his priest that he confided in, that knew he was Daredevil was killed. So there's probably guilt over that, which is why he's not attending a service. Uh, again, I'm guessing at that, but we don't see him go in where you know he would go talk to his priest in you know the earlier series, uh, you know, with this character. So, again, a lot to unpack, but again it is fascinating and I've briefly discussed this with my pastor, who enjoys it immensely as well, uh, as a lutheran, which is not catholicism, but we have some very similar uh, scriptures and doctrine that we follow.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 53:43

So, uh, but we don't listen yeah right, luther's problem was was that the catholic church got away from itself, um, through so many various things that it was doing, um, you know, with, with the most being that the selling of, of dispensations for that guilt. Um, so you know the the cath Catholic Church was capitalizing on Catholic guilt by saying, if you pay us this amount of money, we can, you know, cut your time in purgatory.

Joshua Gilliland: 54:15

And.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino : 54:15

Martin Luther clearly didn't think because he was a very devout Catholic himself that he didn't think that the Catholic Church was doing the right thing by doing all these things. But you know, catholic guilt is definitely a theme. Um in daredevil absolutely, and it's. It's fascinating having questions of faith and an action adventure superhero story yeah, yeah and and great questions of lore, and I expect many more as the series continues.

Joshua Gilliland: 54:47

Part of the reason why I really enjoy it, because I enjoy both immensely, and being able to see them depicted with thoughtfulness is a rewarding watching experience. So with that, we will continue our analysis of Daredevil Born again. We will continue our analysis of Daredevil Born again. For those who are attending WonderCon, I can say that we will be there with a panel. I will not say any more until we can release the schedule, which Comic-Con International will do by March 14th. So stay tuned for more about what we will be presenting at WonderCon in Anaheim, california. So, everyone, thank you for tuning in. Wherever you are, stay safe, stay healthy and stay geeky, take care.