Daredevil Born Again episode, "Sic Semper Systema"

Review of Daredevil Born Again episode 4, "Sic Semper Systema."  Join us for our discussion of who should receive the White Tiger's belongings from the medical examiner, the administration of justice for a suspect who stole Fiddle Faddle, Bail Reform, Redevelopment in local governments, the morality discussion between Daredevil and Punisher, False Imprisonment and Torture. 

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction and White Tiger Case
• 9:40 Legal Inheritance and Evidence Collection
• 17:40 Leroy Bradford's Criminal Case
• 29:20 New York Bail Reform and Criminal Justice
• 39:10 Mayor Fisk's Redevelopment Challenges
• 45:30 Daredevil Confronts The Punisher
• 57:20 Kingpin's Criminal Imprisonment of Adam

Transcript

Joshua Gilliland: 0:05

Hello everyone, my name is Joshua Gilliland. One of the founding attorneys of the Legal Geeks With me to discuss episode 4 of Daredevil Born Again is retired judge Matt Sherino and Chris Butler. Your Honor, how are you tonight? I am well. Thank you very much, josh Excellent and Chris. How are you tonight? I am well. Thank you very much, josh Excellent and Chris. How are you doing.

Kris Butler: 0:28

I'm great, I'm doing what looks like better than Frank Castle's doing.

Joshua Gilliland: 0:34

He looked rough. I mean, needs vitamin D, needs a razor? Yeah, there's a lot going on there, so let's break this down. This is, I think, an extremely well-acted episode when we get to the exchange between Daredevil and the Punisher, but we got some work to do before we get there, and so, chris, let's talk about the medical examiner with the white tiger. My immediate reaction was like who gets the belongings? Did you have any thoughts? And then we'll pivot to Judge Reno.

Kris Butler: 1:20

Yeah, one of my favorite subjects from law school is states and trusts, so I looked up to New York law and so it's similar to what I have experienced with here, where it's sort of you know, the decedent Hector in this case has a spouse, then the spouse inherits anything, especially if they, if they have no kids which I were pretty sure Hector had no kids, right? I think they didn't say anything, like she was pregnant. So then his wife gets everything, gets everything. But if he had kids and no spouse, then the kids get everything. If they have both, then how they break down the assets is the spouse gets the first $50,000 plus half of the remaining balance and then the children get everything else. And if no spouse or kids, parents of the decedent get everything. And if he only has siblings, then the siblings get everything.

Joshua Gilliland: 2:29

Your Honor, your thoughts, with the lawyer, seeing the medical examiner and getting effectively an evidence bag which on one level surprised me because I thought wouldn't this be evidence, but the lawyer leaves with the bag and we see an encounter with the niece. What were your thoughts?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 2:49

Yeah, and as much as this is basically his personal property, I could see the medical examiner giving it to his lawyer if the lawyer is a known entity to safeguard it, either as the executor of the estate or just as someone that knows the family, so would be able to turn it over to the familyor of the estate, or just as someone that knows the family, so would be able to turn it over to the family. And, as Chris said, the property for the bulk of it is going to go to the wife. These did not seem to be people of great means, so pretty much the wife would have inherited everything. Additionally to that first $50,000, there is a long list of household and personal property items that would automatically kind of like a Homestead Act type of thing that also automatically goes to the spouse, and then the assets are divided out, as Chris just stated as Chris just stated.

Joshua Gilliland: 3:43

Well said, it's a reminder of intestate secession, with a wrinkle of criminal procedure in there as well. So all kinds of Good bar question, right?

Joshua Gilliland: 3:54

Yeah a lot of crossing the streams. So what's happening here? So we then have the issue that the lawyer is rightly upset. His client got killed and raises the issue of that. There was no shell casing. And the medical examiner is like, hey, not on the body, not me, I'm cool, I was not at the scene. Like that's not my bailiwick. So Matt eventually goes and does a borderline scientific investigation to figure out where the shell casing could be by letting a bottle roll down and letting gravity do its thing to find out where the bottle lands. In order to figure out where a shell casing could land, the lawyer's turning himself into a witness at this stage. But uh, chris, did you have any thoughts and reactions to that issue?

Kris Butler: 4:51

yeah, well, so you, you uh have this where he's being scientific, but also when he um confronts the cop, um, because he's listening to his heartbeat. Uh, you know, because matt murdoch is a human lie detector, not only just with sound, but also when it comes to, like the, the pheromones and detecting a sweat that he can with people. So he did that. So this was a another extension of his uh excellent hearing, which I thought was cool. But, yeah, he, he set himself up to to be a witness, like, let's say, it was the cop that you know, did it the one he confronted? Because not only do you have him as a witness, cherry could be a witness to witness intimidation from the last case, uh, so it seems like the only person at the firm that could not be uh held or held as a witness is, um, uh, kristen mcduffie.

Joshua Gilliland: 5:45

Yeah, the other attorney, the yeah, taking cherry with him could have helped solve that issue. But this also raises the question about is there like, who would he be representing? Like, if he's trying to gather evidence to make you know, find out what happened to his client, that's not necessarily something being done in the scope of representation.

Kris Butler: 6:07

It's falling into a different category uh, because, unless he's setting up for a simple suit, yeah, then which would then change?

Joshua Gilliland: 6:15

because it's then lawyers witness and that's something we need to avoid. It's there's only rare exceptions when that could be allowed, but it it's generally. We don't want lawyers to be witnesses. Your Honor, your reaction to the scene.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 6:35

I think he's basically accepted the fact that there's not going to be much of an investigation with regards to the White Tigers murder. So he's going to take it upon himself, maybe, to see what happened and, as Chris said, I think that it's possible that there might be a wrongful death action if he does find out that the person who either ordered it or the government entity that partook in it has deep enough pockets to bother to sue, and in which case he would probably have to, at that point, turn it over to another law firm to do because, yes, he would be a witness in as much as he's the one who found the smoking shell.

Joshua Gilliland: 7:24

Which brings us to the issue of confronting the detective at the courthouse. I was not surprised that the cop didn't have a reaction that he was involved with the killing of the white tiger, like it was not him. And I was not surprised by that, but I found it interesting with, well, who did so? It's not that easy of an answer. There are the Marvel shows and Star Wars shows where it's painfully obvious, like you know, somebody who's the reveal, stranger and the Acoly acolyte again, painfully obvious. This is not one of those painfully obvious moments of who who's doing this. So, uh, I'm curious to see where this goes um. But that then raises uh, what will happen shortly? Uh, we, we have. You know the reason why.

Joshua Gilliland: 8:26

Matt's at the courthouse. He has a new client, somebody who's really had a rough go at life, a long rap sheet, so history of getting into trouble. And and the dude sold fiddle faddle caramel court, something that's tasty. Dude is poor, struggling to get by eating scraps truly horrible life situation. And he wanted something sweet and he does all these weird arguments of I paid for it last week. It's like, well, that's not how this works you know, yeah, maybe it was a scroll.

Joshua Gilliland: 9:10

Yeah, I, I was impressed they went there um valid legal defense super, it wasn't a scroll. Yeah, it's dude like the. The scroll defense I don't think is gonna to fly. That might happen once and everyone goes no no, we're not, but again, it's a nice acknowledgement of secret invasion and Captain Marvel and the fact that you know there are scrolls among them in society. Now, so cool, your Honor, your thoughts. Because you presided for many years, You've seen a lot. What was your reaction to this individual who clearly struggled?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 9:52

Yeah, yeah, and New York versus Leroy Bradford was a very telling example of the New York City criminal justice system, especially before the bail reform acts of 2020.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 10:10

And you know he's charged with pedant larceny, which is an a misdemeanor in violation of Section 155.25, which is basically stealing any kind of property, and you know, sitting in arraignments I had many many, many, many, many of these cases that came before me and it actually presented a very accurate portrayal of those situations and the conversations that lawyers had with their clients with regards to those situations that happened every night over and over again, and it generally was before the bail reform acts of 2020, the system where you would get an escalation. So the first time that you shoplift, you might get an ACD, which is a adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which means that if you stay out of trouble for X amount of months usually six then the case gets dismissed and sealed. You would probably be able to plead it down to a violation of disorderly conduct, maybe with a day of community service, maybe with no days of community service, depending on the amount that you stole. The next time that you did, it would definitely be with a couple of days of community service, and probably the fourth time that you get caught stealing something, they would make you plead to the misdemeanor charge, probably with time served. And then the time after that maybe 10 days, the time after that, maybe 30 days, 60 days, 90 days and it reaches a point where, if you've done like three or four of them, the prosecution is no longer going to make any offer and they would say to me that this is an operation spotlight case, your honor, which means that this is a recidivist and he's going to keep doing this. So our offer is an 80 year, which basically means you judge, make whatever offer you want to make, uh, and we would use, you know, the same kind of thing. Okay, we gave you 30 times last, 30 days, last time, this time it's going to be 60. If it's a young enough individual with a pretty clean record, maybe probation. If it's someone with an extensive record, probation is not.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 12:28

Matt was correct in his advice to Leroy. He wasn't going to make it probation. Probation for an amiss demeanor in New York for this kind of crime would have been a year. He would not be reporting diligently, he would not be staying out of trouble. And the problem with the probation plea and in all honesty and a lot of times I didn't offer it if I didn't think the person had a chance of doing it because I thought it was setting them up for failure and then once they miss probation or don't report or get arrested for anything else, the standard of proof for violation of probation is very low. And then if you're found guilty of the violation of probation you do the year. So you're really setting some people up for failure in a system like that.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 13:15

Now, in 2020, the bail reform took place in New York. Soon thereafter was the pandemic, but even before the pandemic, we had started to reform our bail laws in New York and it made most nonviolent crimes, like these, non-bail eligible. So he would not have to face the situation, because what would happen to Leroy in? The common thing is the offer would be an A in 30 days or an A in 10 days, as Matt was able to get it barking down with great results and, because of his past warrants, bail would be set and he would sit in jail until his trial for a much longer amount of time than the 10 days or the 20 days or the 30 days that he would have gotten to begin with. So eventually he would come before you in an all-purpose part, as they're scheduling trials, and the offer would become an eight-time serve because you've already served 30 days, time served because you've already served 30 days, and so the system had a way of getting rid of cases, but at the same time, you had people that were basically doing crimes of poverty sitting in jail even though there is a presumption of innocence for periods of time because they could not make bail. So New York decided that it would make most of these nonviolent crimes non-bail eligible. You are allowed to put conditions as a judge, like going to supervise release, going to various programs. Some of those programs then tried to help the people and then the case would work its way through the system. So New York has tried to get rid of that situation that happened to Leroy by doing this.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 15:08

Now, crime did spike. People argued that the bail reform was the reason for the spike. There's arguments on both sides of that, and some of the bail reforms were then reformed to make them a little bit harsher on the defendants and make it easier for the judges to set bail even when they were nonviolent crimes, if they had just committed one, or while they had one case that was going on, they committed another crime that again then made it bail eligible, even though it was a nonviolent thing. So they gave the judges mechanisms to kind of go back a little bit towards the old system that Mr Leroy was dealing with and that's kind of where New York currently is within the world of bail reform and these kinds of things, and other cities have done the same thing San Francisco, portland and they're struggling with. Did they reform it too much? Is that the reason for various crime spikes and whether it's going to change everything? And you know, the scales of justice is a great symbol for the legal system because everything is a pendulum that goes back and forth.

Joshua Gilliland: 16:29

It's curious you discussed the Bail Reform Act because in California we had kind of a parallel course with a crime reform act I think it was prop 47, I might be wrong on that. Uh, big born from what happened in the 1990s. So in the 1990s, with our proposition initiatives after the like, horrific kidnapping and murder of poly class, uh, like you know, the guy who ran for attorney general, one of the Democratic challenger, basically blamed the Republican for, like, the death of Polly Klass and it backfired in his campaign like he lost in spectacular fashion because one of the initiatives you know brought in three strikes, inifornia and that was marketed to voters as, like it's inherently dangerous felons that would, if they commit multiple crimes, they go away because of you know they keep committing horrible crimes. Well, it was more strict liability offense, like my grandfather did, prison ministries and the gentleman that was incarcerated his crimes were were dumb, like he was the dumb bad guy robbed a vending machine as his third strike and then prison for life in San Quentin. Well, as a society we got no, no, this went too far and we do some reforms here, which was meant to help, but then people start freaking out because you have individuals going into, you know, big box stores and just walking out with stuff and I was like, okay, that ain't right, like that's, that's, you know. So now retailers are suffering and so in this past election cycle we tightened things up.

Joshua Gilliland: 18:28

I'm not quite sure how things are going to pan out, because I think it's a little early. I'm not a criminal defense attorney. This type of law really upsets me because it's the issue of like. We have other problems, you know problems. What's driving individuals to commit crimes? How do we address those, as opposed to having a, you know, giving up on rehabilitation and just going straight to, you know, a school to prison pipeline, which is I don't agree with. Uh, so this man's struggle, depicted in this fictional show with superheroes and aliens, was hauntingly disturbing. Uh, chris, uh, the judge and I just talked a lot. Do you have any thoughts to add?

Kris Butler: 19:14

I mean, I don't have a a lot more to say. I know that here in Michigan there was a lot of a slate of bill reform acts, that bail reform acts that were brought up last year. So I just know in my work that you know there have been, you know, inmates just like the judge talked about had you know, that were sitting in jail for a lengthy time because of covid, you know. But because the court system was so backlogged because of covid, you had people sitting there for nonviolent crimes that had to be in jail for a lot longer than they normally would have. And that's just the reality of the situation. So I did think it was interesting that they brought up this point and then stayed on it for a while, because even on you know other shows with for a while. Because even on you know other shows with legal shows that like have like all they do is legal drama. Um, sometimes they don't stand on things like this for a while.

Joshua Gilliland: 20:27

You may have a five minute scene and then it's on to something else entirely yeah, it was thoughtful and well done and hopefully makes people think, which brings us to, I believe, your Honor. You're the one who actually broke down the Latin title of this episode, and could you walk us through that please?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 20:55

Yeah, the title of this episode was Sic Semper Systemia or Systemia, and I think it was a play on on on sick Semper Tyranus, which was what John Wilkes Booth yelled when he killed the tyrant, abraham Lincoln. Thus thus to all tyrants and this is thus always to the systems, systems, and I think that that was the key focus of this show that you know, the criminal justice system, the city government system. So a lot of this show had to deal with the way systems worked and I thought that they did a really good job. Back to Leroy Bradford. You know that they really showed the lawyer with the discussion with this client, the lawyer then going out and having a discussion with the ADA and then the return to the client. I mean, as Chris said, they usually show what won't stick with it for all of those parts, and they were very accurately.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 21:55

You know I've overheard many, many of those conversations and it was very accurately done, including, you know, the frustration of Leroy Bradford who you know recognizes that this stay in jail will have more results in just the time that is spent in prison, because you know, you miss your showing up for your welfare, you miss showing up for other governmental things and then you lose your apartment that you have through maybe Section 8 or other government programs. So the consequences of those few days in jail can far outnumber just those few days. And granted, you could say and I understand this as well well, he shouldn't have stolen the cereal, and that's true, he should not have stolen the cereal. But should the punishment for stealing a snack, when you're too poor to buy any food and you're eating out of dumpsters, be the loss of your apartment, your government benefits? You know?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 23:02

20 days in jail, and some people will say, yes, that's absolutely what it should be and that'll stop people from stealing. And that is one argument, and that's a very true argument. But you know, the system does have a way of grinding down the less fortunate, and it has been that way for a long time. I don't think there's any easy solutions to this, but the fact that this show brought out the fact that the system acting in such a way is something for discussion, I think, was really really well done in this episode.

Joshua Gilliland: 23:43

Haunting. Yeah, just again thoughtful, and again it's a superhero show and it's making this, you know.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 23:55

Yeah yeah, it really made you think and you know, hopefully it really made you think and, and you know, hopefully other people have this conversation and I know these conversations are going on, uh, throughout the country and, and, and you know, in and have been going on for a very long time among those people that that make criminal justice reforms and and changes, um, but you know, average Joe isn't necessarily thinking about this and average Joe might watch a superhero show and maybe then think about this and maybe understand a little bit more of the other side than he did before watching the show.

Joshua Gilliland: 24:30

It's. Here in California there are a lot of people living under bridges and in tents and gullies that have jobs Like they've been knocked down and they can't get back up and they're still trying to make ends meet. And it's just, you know, their lives can spiral and crash and recovering from that is profoundly difficult, and you know this this fictional character's struggle is highlighting. You know he couldn't go to a social security meeting unless lost those benefits and that was now eating garbage. It's like time out like that. You know the reaction is I hope that's not really happening. It's like, oh wait, it does so very well done so. Hats off to the creators for putting this together.

Joshua Gilliland: 25:23

Uh, I want to go to the mayor and then then the meeting with frank castle. So we have, you know, mayor fisk trying to rule by fiat of doing urban redevelopment which was the theme of daredevil season one of aggressive urban redevelopment. Uh, through, you know, bombing and all you know, gang violence to I want to make this a nice place and thus I'm going to kill a lot of people to do it. It's not how redevelopment works. He's now mayor and, while I actually appreciate the intent of this could be a nice place, let's fix it up. The reality is I can't just call a press conference and say we're going to go fix it up, because it then opens the door. How's the process actually work? I'm not sure who added these notes. If it was your honor or Chris on the we built the city mantra, your honor, why don't you take it? You're the first I won't say resident New Yorker, but the person who has lived in New York.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 26:40

I've sat on community boards in New York and certainly have many friends within the city government. In fact, the Department of Buildings Commissioner is a good friend of mine.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 26:57

New York has a lot of rules when it comes to doing anything and it's very, very frustrating Things that should be done very simply. My favorite story is a simple, literally a fire hydrant that was like five feet into the street as opposed to it being on the sidewalk, and this was because one part of the city, you know, got the change order for moving the street, but the part of the city that's supposed to move the fire hydrant didn't get their order and they just needed to move the fire hydrant 10 feet to basically put it on the sidewalk because you couldn't use the street because it had a fire hydrant in the middle of it. And it literally took seven years to move this fire hydrant and every borough president in Staten Island would update at his state of the borough the story of the fire hydrant and it was just. It was. It was really, really incredible and unfortunately that that is the way the city works, because it's so large, there's so many levels of you know.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 28:11

Things have to go to the community board and then they have to go to the the the board of planners and to the city planners and then there's to go to the city planners and then it has to go to the city council and then you know every agency gets to weigh in and certain things the agencies will fight over each other as to who has the jurisdiction of doing it, and you know this is where I think you know the name of the episode really is true. That's always the systems, like fighting a tyrant. Fighting the systems is almost impossible. And the children singing we built this city is a great backdrop to the amount of work it actually takes to build a city.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 28:57

And Mayor Blumberg, when he was mayor, he had an interesting twist. He got the private industry to do a lot of the building for the city and then it would either be turned over to the city and the developer in the area got certain easements to allow them to do certain things that they wanted to do. So he was very creative in marrying private funds and private entities with the government. But he didn't win all of his battles either, and it can be very frustrating and I'm sure we have not seen the last of the mayor, king Payne, losing his temper with regards to trying to get things done in the city.

Joshua Gilliland: 29:52

The look on his face hearing we built the city both by schoolchildren at the latvian embassy. Like the look of pain on his face. I mean this is so well acted. I mean there's a reason why this actor is awesome, uh, but it's just like oh, oh, boy like I'm, and he's like no, no, I don't need any more songs, thank you, we're out of here I read.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 30:19

I read a great tid, a great tidbit on one of the articles about the show that when they first did the students they were so great that it almost seemed unbelievable.

Joshua Gilliland: 30:29

So they had to add some less than good students to make it sound more like a real class singing, make it sound more like a real class singing, like the Harlem boys choir in the glory soundtrack, you know, just just something completely over the top. It's like exactly. It's like well, you should be crying at the end of it and just in applauding and wanting more as opposed to I got to go, kids, thank you.

Kris Butler: 30:58

Yep. You're like we'll sing some more. No, no, no, I'm good.

Joshua Gilliland: 31:02

I'm good. You guys are awesome. Love all of you, bye-bye. Wow, chris. Anything to add on the fire hydrant in the street scenario?

Kris Butler: 31:17

No, the extent of my legal expertise when it comes to those things would have been like the massive pothole, the, the road work and all the you know like. Is this a county road? Is this a city road? Uh, or is it? This is a state road but county has, you know, covers, repairs or anything like that, so that I may be able to get into Talking about seven years worth of how to get this fire hydrant moved down my wheelhouse. I don't even think I have the patience for that.

Joshua Gilliland: 31:53

Redevelopment is horrifically complicated. I did some doc review on a contract project for one of the cities in the Bay Area that had an area to be redeveloped and the complexity, the maze that had to be navigated was like, oh my word, uh, just horribly complex. Uh, it's amazing we get things done and there's a reason why they're systems, because you know the questions about, like an environmental impact study is where we have to start. Okay, it's like it's not a sexy press conference, but I can understand calling the press release or a news conference and saying I want to do this step one and then we're going to the board like he could outline it and outline a vision. I don't see a problem with that. But you're then going to have to control expectations of trying to work through a maze of now I need to get board members to agree and vote and god knows how long the environmental impact study is going to take.

Joshua Gilliland: 33:11

Yeah, and again, ports, there could be lots of bad mojo there. I mean, mean there's uh in Alviso, california, which is north of the Northern tip of San Jose. You know, at the end of the 19th century, beginning of 20th, farm produce from Silicon Valley which was growing oranges and you know, produce was getting shipped out of there on on scow scooters, big rectangles for sales as the semiconductor industry built. All the runoff from that development went into the bay and it landed there, because that's the tip of Silicon Valley. So all that mud is saturated with mercury and other bad stuff. And uh, well, there are those who want to be able to bring in mega yachts to go see the 49ers play, getting through the remediation to do that, and then build up elviso. I don't know if I'll see that in my lifetime, like that's. Anyway, local government cleaning stuff up. Ports are messy. Let's talk about.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 34:27

Look how long the big dig took in Boston, oh God, I mean. And granted, it's gorgeous. It's gorgeous now.

Joshua Gilliland: 34:35

It was very worthwhile to do, but that was going on for a long time yeah, we just don't crank these out, and if you do, it's because you're ignoring the environment. It's like we're just gonna plow through this. I mean, it's one thing to do, it's wartime and you need a highway system through canada to to Alaska so you can supply troops. You know, I get, but even then that was slogging through permafrost and miserable. I get, we're not going to do an environmental impact study during war. However, when you don't have a war, you got to play by those rules. Don't have a war, you got to play by those rules. Speaking of war, let's talk about this amazing scene with murdoch confronting castle and I uh, I think everyone has notes. So, uh, your honor, I believe this is your note about did the system bring justice for Foggy with Castle's debate with Murdoch?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 35:41

Yeah, but you know, back to the title of the show, sympathia. You know they really had a philosophical dialogue as to whether or not the system brought justice to Foggy. You know the fact that Bullseye is sitting for the rest of his life in prison. You know he's still alive, unlike Foggy. So, you know, did the system fail him? And Frank Castle, you know, keeps tweaking Matt Murdock about that issue and the dialogue between them is you to me, emmy, worthy and it. They were both so good and so real and you felt that you know matt's pain while he was having, you know, this argument almost with himself, because you know he's going through this himself. As to, you know, since he's hung up the red suit is because he believes in the system and he wants the system to have its chance to work. And that dialogue was just incredible.

Kris Butler: 36:54

Yeah, and you think about, at the end of season three, you know Bullseye had his back broken so presumably he was taken into police custody and he had that you know, spine repair surgery. But here we are, seven years later and that man is out on the streets after he did a whole legion of crimes, of killing people, assaults across the city. So you know, if you know not saying that Frank is right to be offing people everything. But you know, did the system really work for Foggy, for someone who also believed in the system and was killed by someone that was not held accountable by it?

Joshua Gilliland: 37:41

Yeah, there's, there's so much to this. I mean again just the acting chops of of both of these individuals and the what was written and what, how it was shot, just exceptional Cause you have again Charlie Cox is tearing up and it's like, okay, well done. You know, it's like it's it's so much pain from both of them. And you know, one disturbing element was Castle saying that he keeps hearing his dead son encouraging revenge, just to go out and start killing, go out and start killing. And I found that horrifying, that a little kid, you know like your memory of your son.

Joshua Gilliland: 38:37

Is him wanting extreme retribution like that? Okay, it's like again, the punisher needs therapy, but that ain't gonna happen, uh, uh. So that way, you know matt's not hearing foggy saying kill them all. Uh, you know, it's uncle ben didn't tell peter parker. You know, go on a killing spree, right, you know, like that's again, it's not what heroes do they're supposed to be? Due process, uh, but some of the legal things I thought about is castle's, a former client and I just want to put out there, you know. The question is is discussion privilege and I'm going to say no, because there's no current representation I would say any prior discussions are protected. Still, that raises a funky issue with the crime fraud exception that a lawyer cannot be part of helping plan a crime. I don't think that's taking place or took place, uh, but if anything was, here's how you go out on a revenge killing spree that would not be protected. Um, but so much there.

Kris Butler: 39:50

Anything else to add on this confrontation them and, uh, you know, he when talking about his son, I don't think he thinks it's a good thing that he does hear this voice, but he will acquiesce to it, so I think that will hopefully lead to when he confronts some of these copycats and he's just like I'm not someone to emulate.

Joshua Gilliland: 40:23

You know that kind of thing, yeah which happened to thing which happened in the comics? Right, you know again. The police are supposed to uphold the law and not engage in summary executions.

Kris Butler: 40:39

And.

Joshua Gilliland: 40:40

I just know. All right, we find out from therapy, which would be privilege. So there is husband-wife therapy and we find out that, uh, there was an affair and that, uh, mayor fisk says he just had a conversation with adam, the paramour who had relations with vanessa while Fisk was away, and we find out that Adam's being held in a dungeon and Fisk goes and has dinner. We see the painting Rabbit in a Snowstorm from season one that has blood splatter on it and this raises issues that the mayor has someone locked up for a long time. Guy has long hair and a beard and he's enjoying what looks like a very tasty dinner. Your honor, can you walk us through the some of the issues with this?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 41:45

Sure To go with the things that he could clearly be charged with. He would be able to be charged with unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, which is penal law section 135.05 of New York's penal law. A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when he restrains another person. Restrain is defined in 135.00 of the New York Penal Law to mean restricting a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his or her liberty. So that's clearly the case in this situation and that's a class A misdemeanor. He would also probably be charged with unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, which again is that same level of restraining another person, but in the first degree. The enhancement is that you're exposing him to serious physical injury and the cage and the conditions that he's in arguably would subject Adam to serious physical injury and that would raise it to a class E felony, which is the lowest level of felonies. But he would also most seriously be able to be charged with kidnapping in the first degree and kidnapping is under Section 135.25 of the New York Penal Law and a person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 43:22

It's pretty clear from the history that he is the one, since he's the only one that knows that Adam is there, that he is the one that abducted or had Adam abducted. And abduct means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found. Clearly, this underground dungeon is a place where he's not likely to be found. And if on the section two, a place where he's not likely to be found, and if on the section two, if you restrain a person for a period of greater than 12 hours with intent to either cause physical injury or to terrorize him, you would be subjected to kidnapping in the first degree. And it's pretty clear from the circumstances that he's been there for a while. As you said, he now has a beard, he looks like he's not being fed well and is barely alive and clearly wants to leave. So clearly he is committing at least one, if not two, felonies and if caught, he would be convicted, possibly, of those various crimes.

Joshua Gilliland: 44:41

There's possibly a conspiracy at play, because Fisk isn't working alone. There's at least a catering service involved to deliver a meal like that. And whoever is feeding Adam? Because I doubt the mayor is swinging by with food, so that there's some lackey at play. So two people for a conspiracy. There's some lackey at play, so two people for a conspiracy, so we could tack that on Chris any thoughts on on this?

Kris Butler: 45:18

or, more importantly, how do you process sitting mayor? Yeah, I mean the I think we see kind of going on in New York City right now. It would have to be the Justice Department more than likely to bring charges and correct me if I'm wrong, your Honor, but only the governor. Besides, maybe a recall only the governor could remove the mayor from.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 45:42

In New York? There's no recall. So the governor would have to remove the kingpin and then, once he's removed, either the state or the federal government could charge him in as much as he is guilty of committing some state crime issues With the current mayor, mayor Adams. The charges are federal in nature, so it could only have been brought by the federal agencies and the Department of Justice.

Kris Butler: 46:13

I also wonder you know where was Adam when he got kidnapped? Because, let's say, he was in New Jersey, you know, and now it's a federal crime, could you kidnap to cross state lines?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 46:23

Yes, that would definitely make it a federal crime.

Joshua Gilliland: 46:32

It's super dangerous, uh, I mean bad life choice. Bad life choice, uh, and now we have multiple felonies taking place, a whole bunch of them. I do want to highlight that there used to be a cause of action called alienation of affection. I think virtually every state, with the exception of four or five, has knocked it off the books. Uh, and it's the well, I'll just say it's the mommy kissing santa claus scenario that you know what's daddy's recourse in that situation.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 47:07

New York just removed the adultery crime from its penal law last year. Wow, and in a matter of trivia, there really haven't been many, if any, modern defendants charged with adultery.

Joshua Gilliland: 47:40

However, one case of note. The defendant was charged with adultery. The case of Amy.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 47:43

Fisher back in the day.

Joshua Gilliland: 47:44

Oh my, oh, wow, he was actually Joey Bofoco was charged and convicted of adultery as part of that criminal case I remember the Saturday Night Lives with all the parodies of all the TV movies about that.

Joshua Gilliland: 48:04

Wow, oh boy, last, last year. That's late. That's late to the party of uh, because that it's like for alienation of affection. It's just against public policy. Like suing the paramour is just not. Something like that happens. Uh, it's just again. There's only a handful of states left and I think the numbers decreased since I last did legal research on it. But boy, howdy, I do want to raise this tease that they had. We have Latvia, mentioned twice, we have the ADA and we have the Latvian embassy. Dr Doom is from Latveria, very close, close in spelling. You know you have an E in Dr Doom's country. But it was like, hey, is this a? You know? Initially, after watching it with the subtitles on, I was like okay, they're not doing a soft launch of Dr Doom's home country in this. But I was initially kind of excited for is this, are they going there? And the answer is no, no, they did not.

Kris Butler: 49:26

Yeah, my brother said the same thing while we were watching it and I was just like no, I don't think so, just because I was like they're not gonna, they're not gonna put that in. I mean, granted, daredevil is a very popular show, so if they were going to put it in a tv show, this would be the one to do it. But no, I think they're going to save that for Fantastic Four.

Joshua Gilliland: 49:48

Yeah, but again I was initially I mean Judge Cherino and I traded message. I was like, is this a soft intro of second watching with subtitles? I was like, no, just different, if you had that number of people from Dr Doom's country living in the United States, that it's a thing that people know about it. So I digress. People know about it, so I digress anyway. Uh, thank you all for tuning in. Is there anything for the good of the order? Either of you would like to share.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino (Ret): 50:36

Can't wait for the next episode. Yep same love it.

Joshua Gilliland: 50:40

so, uh, for those going to wonder, con friday 4 pm uh, the legal Geeks will be speaking on YAR. The Pirates of Star Wars Super excited. Been working on the slides. Gonna have a good time, and Chris and I and others will be in Tokyo for Star Wars Celebration. So if you're going ping us, it should be a good time. And everyone, wherever you are, stay safe, stay stay healthy and stay geeky, take care.