|
|
Join us each Tuesday as Bob Ingersoll analyzes how the law
is portrayed in comics then explains how it would really work.
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
THE LAW IS A ASS for 08/31/1999
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 8
Originally published in The Comics Buyer's Guide # 522
November 18, 1983 issue
I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm not perfect. I don't even try. After all, when John Travolta and Jamie Lee Curtis were Perfect, Leonard Maltin only gave them one and one- half stars anyway. So what's the point?
Not being perfect, I will, on occasion, let something into a column that, maybe, I shouldn't have let in. (Like dangling participles.) For example, I have been accused of ascribing motives to comics creators, when I do my columns. For example in the example, Tony Isabella complained about the following line from the second column I wrote for CBG, the one that ran here on August 3rd: "All the writer cared about was the joke. He didn't care about accurate courtroom portrayals. So what we got was a joke and a totally inaccurate court scene."
Although I can see where Tony was coming from, it wasn't really my intent to ascribe motives to the writer. What I meant was that it seemed from the story that the writer cared more about getting the joke into the story than he did about the accuracy of the law or courtroom proceedings. If the writer had cared about accuracy, he would have researched the law better and realized that the scene, and its payoff joke didn't work. That he chose to go with the joke instead of the accurate courtroom portrayal would indicate he cared more about the joke than accuracy.
The problem was the way I phrased the sentiment, while certainly susceptible to misinterpretation, was pithier, punchier and, because it didn't bog down the proceedings, made the joke I was telling funnier. Shakespeare once wrote that brevity was the soul of wit. And, while I don't believe everything he says-witness the fact that I didn't go and kill myself the first time I had a love affair go south-I can't say he's wrong about this one. So I chose to word my sentiment in a way which was more ambiguous for the sake of my joke.
So, let me make one thing perfectly clear-I think the statute of limitations has run out on that phrase-in my columns, I analyze stories and try not to analyze personalities of their creators. But, as I said, back at the beginning of this week's installment, I'm not perfect. Occasionally I slip and write something which looks like I'm criticizing the creator, not the story.
When I do-and to bring this Docket Entry full circle, there is a throw-away linein this installment which might be so construed-please remember that it's not really my intent question creators' motives and accept my apology.
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 8
by
Bob Ingersoll
Ever wonder what happens to incompetent district attorneys? The ones who don't don the Vigilante's basic black with clashing red ski goggles, then go out to hunt down criminals, that is. They go to small towns to become incompetent small-town lawyers.
Incompetent is the only word I can use to describe two examples of legal malpractice, that I've come across in recent comics. Take first the unnamed district attorney referred to in on Page 18, Panel 1 of Batman #367-the one who prosecuted Poison Ivy but, "could not make the murder charge stick," so couldn't convict her of anything more than "coercion to defraud." (And while we're on the subject, "coercion to defraud," what the hell kind of a crime is that anyway, some kind of lesser included offense for urge to kill?)
When I read something which so obviously refers to the legal profession as the above quote, I naturally wonder how accurate it is from a legal point of view. Could the D.A. have made the murder charge stick? Could he have convicted Poison Ivy of something more that coercion to defraud? Will Bradford ever admit his love for Carolyn? Will Juliet choose Hollywood or Jonathan? And who is the mysterious stranger with Monica's birth certificate?
These and other questions can be answered by reviewing Ivy's actions in Batman # 344. Okay, only the questions about Poison Ivy can be answered in this comic, which was Ivy's last appearance and the venue wherein she performed whatever acts resulted in her being convicted of coercion to defraud. And as I've got nothing better to do at the moment, let's go ahead and review the aforementioned Ivy's actions in the aforementioned issue of Batman. Bradford, Carolyn, Juliet, Jonathan and Monica will just have to fend for themselves.
First Ivy used some form of hypnosis to force the Wayne Foundation Board of Directors to assign all the Foundation's assets to her. I would have called that act-exerting control over another person's property by deception-grand theft, because that's what it is. But what do I know? I've only studied the law what how crimes are named. I guess Grand theft probably didn't sound legalistic enough, hence the gobbledygook "coercion to defraud".
Next Ivy used some experimental hybrid plants to turn her chauffeur/lover, Ivor, into an arboreal monster. When The Batman tracked Ivy down, she instructed Ivor-Thing to kill Batman. Poison Ivor responded by throwing Batman out of a top floor window. (Only a quickly thrown Batrope kept our hero from becoming Bat-Splat.) When Ivy realized her hench-hedge was losing, she decided to kill them both and threw poison thorns at them. (Only the timely intervention of Robin kept The Batman from an early grave and Ivor from being planted over it.)
During their fight The Batman threw Ivor off the roof. Ivor fell, crushed a car and his root system, then died. Before he died, however, Ivor made a full confession to The Batman, Robin, Commissioner Gordon, and probably Giraldo Rivera. (Which is only natural. All the dying arboreal abominations I've ever seen have always made full confessions. I guess they're afraid they won't be transplanted into Heaven with an unconfessed crime still hanging over their branches.)
That's what Ivy did or caused to happen. Obviously, she could be prosecuted for any crime she actually committed. She could also be prosecuted for any crime she ordered Ivor to commit under the aider and abettor laws. Still, the only thing the Gotham City District Attorney could convict her on was coercion to defraud, because, according to the story, he couldn't get the jury to believe that Poison Ivor had once been a man, so couldn't get a murder conviction.
Let's look at the logic of the story as given. It is true that you can't murder a maple, but I still find it hard to believe that the D.A. couldn't convict Ivy of murdering Ivor. This is a jury that knows its world is invaded by a different alien species every week. This is a jury that believes in Fifth Dimensional practical joking imps. This is a jury that believes it isn't Superman behind Clark Kent's Foster Grants. And the D.A. couldn't get the jury to believe in a simple inter-species transmutation?
But, some of you are saying, why take the man to task for failing to convict Poison Ivy of murdering Ivor. After all, she didn't push Ivor off the roof, The Batman did. If anyone killed Ivor it was Batman, not Ivy.
In most states, Ivy could be convicted of murder. Felony murder isn't just killing someone while committing a felony, it's causing the death of another person while committing a crime. What's the difference? When you kill someone, you actually do the act which kills. When you cause the death, you set in motion a chain of events, which results in the death. Running over someone while you're driving is killing him. Leaving your car unattended while it's in gear, so that it rolls down a hill and runs over someone is causing his death. (What a column! Morbid and informative.)
State courts interpret the felony murder statute like this: if you could foresee that someone's death was a possible result of your criminal conduct, then you, by engaging in the conduct, caused his death. The interpretation has been applied to the common scenario where A and B rob someone at gunpoint, but the victim pulls out his own gun and kills B. Because the victim's retaliation is foreseeable, as is the possibility of B's death, A would be guilty of felony murder in causing the death of B.
In the same way, Ivy could foresee that someone falling to his death was a probable consequence of a fight atop a building. As she ordered Ivor to kill Batman, she committed the attempted murder of Batman and the felony murder of Ivor.
Batman heard Ivy confess that she had turned Ivor into a Wandering Jew. Commissioner Gordon heard Ivor admit his identity and confess to several crimes. Quincey, M.E. conducted an autopsy-dissection?-and found out that Ivor had the exterior of a Dutch elm but the interior of a Dutch uncle. However, despite this testimony, the D.A. couldn't convince the jury that Ivor had once been a man. (The man, apparently, got his license by answering a match book ad, "If you can draw me, you can earn BIG BUCKS as a high priced lawyer.") Even worse, however, the only charge on which the D.A. could secure a conviction was theft, excuse me, "coercion to defraud."
That's it? That was the only charge he could make stick? We've already shown that he should have been able to convict her of murdering Ivor, but was that all? Go back and read what Ivy did again. Are there other charges of which Ivy should have been convicted?
Do ursine mammals defecate in primary successive seres? What crimes? You know my methods, Watson, apply them.
Seriously, stop reading for a moment and make a list of all the crimes you think Ivy could have been convicted of. When you're finished read on and we'll compare lists. Ready? Begin. (But no cheating now.)
One point before I give my list. (This gives those of you who didn't make a list another chance. Don't read on, go make a list. It'll be fun.) If your list includes theft cross it off. Remember, Ivy's theft was given a glitzy polysyllabic name, coercion to defraud, and Ivy was convicted of it already. Double Jeopardy says it's no fair convicting her of the same crime twice.
First we have inter-species transmutation. She turned a man into a plant. I know that no law book says it's illegal to turn a man into a plant, but when existing laws are given proper interpretation, they'll cover the situation. In this case we have some form of felony assault.
The greater forms of felony assault are usually defined in terms of causing serious physical harm to another and physical harm is, itself, defined in wide-reaching terms such as physiological impairment. I don't know about you, but I think turning a man into a tree is causing him a serious physiological impairment.
Unfortunately the jury didn't believe that Ivor-Thing had once been just Ivor for the murder charge. It probably wouldn't have believe that he was a man inflicted with the physiological impairment of inter-species transmutation either. So, we shouldn't be surprised that the D.A. didn't get a conviction on this crime either.
How about this crime? Ivy ordered Ivor to kill Batman, and Ivor tried by throwing Batman off a roof. That's aiding and abetting attempted murder. Of course, if the jury believed that Ivor had always been a plant, it wouldn't believe that Ivy could order the plant to kill, either. (Admit it, now, when was the last time your philodendron responded,
when you ordered it to speak?) So, okay, here's another crime that went by the wayside, because the jury didn't believe Ivor had been a man.
It still leaves us with a major felony that Ivy can't wriggle out of. She-not Ivor but Poison Ivy, herself- threw poison thorns at The Batman to kill him. (I won't bother with her throwing thorns at Ivor. The jury believed Ivor was only a plant and you can't be arrested for killing a plant, despite what my wife says, when I knock over her African Violets.) Still, that's one count of attempted murder of The Batman. No transmutated man-plants involved, just a man, a woman, poison thorns, and a murder attempt. The Batman could have described it. Robin could have described it. But, apparently, the D.A. couldn't describe it. If he could have, Ivy would have been convicted of it.
Attempted murder is a first-degree felony, punishable by lots of time in the state-funded institution of your choice. Even with time off for good behavior, Ivy wouldn't have been released in time far Batman #367.
Another crime they might have been able to get Ivy on. Remember her experimental hybrids, what experimental fertilizer did she use on them? Something extracted from experimental herbs the mere possession of which nets you ten to twenty?
After their district attorney demonstrated legal powers and abilities, far below those of mortal men, the citizens of Gotham City could have had only one appropriate reward: they voted him out of office. Don't worry, he found work. He just returned to the small town he had come from and resumed his practice. How do I know? Because I saw him at work in the story, "Banjo Lessons" in Twisted Tales #5. It had to be the same man in both stories. There couldn't be two lawyers as bad as Mr. Brinks in "Banjo Lessons."
How bad was Brinks? He was so bad, he lost cases to Hamilton Burger. He was so bad his clients used to object to his questions. (Funny, those jokes didn't work for Carson either.) He was, in fact, so bad he was as bad as the story "Banjo Lessons."
SPOILER WARNING
I am about to recount the plot of "Banjo Lessons" including the ending. If you haven't read the story and don't want it ruined by having the ending revealed (although I don't know if anything could ruin "Banjo Lessons" other than reading it) skip the next four paragraphs.
One afternoon Sim was in his yard. His three best friends, Carter, Rance, and Jimbo, were around. Carter was beating a dog. Rance was showing off his new quail gun, and Jimbo was preparing a bar-b-cue. Sim suddenly grabs the gun and graphically kills all three without apparent reason.
Now Sim is standing trial for murder. His defense attorney, Brinks, gets little cooperation from Sim, because Sim doesn't remember the incident. All he remembers is a ten-year-old hunting trip with Carter, Rance, and Jimbo.
Carter brought Banjo, a black retriever, on the trip. Carter was unbelievably cruel to Banjo. He beat Banjo. He kicked Banjo. And finally, after the four had been snowed in for weeks and were running out of food, he shot and cooked Banjo. Carter, Rance, and Jimbo eat the dog. Sim did not.
Brinks knows there is more to Sim's story. He puts Sim on the witness stand then proceeds to cross-examine Sim in order to force him to reveal the truth of the hunting trip. Sim does. The truth is that Banjo wasn't a black dog. He was a black man, which Carter the bigot treated like a dog; then shot and ate.
END OF SPOILER
Brinks' stated defense theory was temporary insanity. That defense doesn't exist, except in the movies.
There is no such thing as "temporary insanity." Insanity is a legal term, not a medical one, which refers to the argument that, at the time of the criminal act, a mental illness prevented the person from knowing what he was doing was wrong. Insanity measures only the mental state at the time and does not concern itself with how long the mental state lasted.
If a person momentarily snaps and commits a crime, the defense isn't temporary insanity, it's simply insanity, measured, as I said by the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime. The fact that the insanity was short-lived doesn't come into play during the guilt or innocent phase of the trial. It only comes into play when the judge is deciding whether the person found insane should be institutionalized. Brinks' relying on a nonexistent defense wasn't too awful competent, just awful. But it gets worse.
Brinks developed his defense by cross-examining Sim and forcing him to tell the truth. Are there problems here? Does the Pontiff practice Catholicism?
Except in special circumstances, which Brinks hadn't established, you can't cross-examine your own witness. You can't badger him and force the truth out of him. That's what the other side does. Brinks couldn't have developed his theory by cross-examining his own client, and only a fool would have planned to do so, Naturally that's exactly what Brinks planned.
And even if Sim's story was true (we only have his word for it) so what? The fact that Sim saw something really yucchy ten years ago doesn't mean he was insane ten years later when he killed Carter, Rance, and Jimbo. It simply means Sim saw, something yucchy ten years ago.
To develop the defense of insanity, Brinks needed the testimony of experts! A psychiatrist or two to testify that Sim was suffering from a mental illness produced by what he had seen a decade earlier and which kept him from knowing what he was doing was wrong. Without such expert testimony Sim hasn't established a defense, only yuchy memories.
Apparently the artist of "Banjo Lessons" got caught up in the inaccuracies of its court room portrayal. The last panel looks like one of those puzzles, where you're supposed to find all the mistakes in the picture.
In one picture we have a witness stand that's across the room from the jury box. Jury boxes are always next to the witness stand, otherwise soft spoken witnesses couldn't be heard. Hell, there are even several loud-spoken witnesses who couldn't be heard by the jury when it was across a courtroom from them. After all, courtrooms have to be big enough to house all the suspects in a Perry Mason episode.
Next we have a American judge wearing a white powdered wig. Forget how cool Charles Laughton looked in Witness For the Prosecution, guys, American courts abandoned this British foppery centuries ago.
Finally we have a court reporter taking down the testimony with a 1930 model manual typewriter. What did he do stop the testimony every third question, so he could change paper? (And speaking of inaccuracies, I won't even mention the impossible anatomy of the first lady in the jury box.)
Funny, I used to complain about the inaccurate portrayal of American courts found in your average Perry Mason rerun. But frankly, I wish your average comic book writer would watch a Perry Mason rerun or two. Then maybe your average comic book portrayal of American courts would be more accurate than it is now.
BOB INGERSOLL
<< 08/24/1999 | 08/31/1999 | 09/07/1999 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
