- Thanks to Audible for
keeping Legal Eagle in the air. - Research suggests that PTSD can be triggered by new stressors. - Like losing your family. - I need to get to work
on the opening statement, but we need to be sure Castle
will get on board with this. - (sighs) I'll try. - So have they not spoken
to their client before? Pro tip, if trial is tomorrow,
you really, really, really need to talk to your client beforehand to know what your
defenses are going to be. (Whimsical music) Hey, legal eagles. It's time to think like a lawyer. Today, we are covering
the trial of Frank Castle from Marvel's Daredevil. We've been on a bit of a Marvel
tear here on this channel. But before I leave the Marvel
legal cinematic universe, at least for a little
while, I wanted to make sure that I cover this highly
requested scene from Daredevil where Frank Castle is put on
trial for all of the murders that he has committed,
and he is being defended, spoiler alert, by Matt Murdock who is also Daredevil on the side. A lawyer's gotta have
a side hustle, I guess. As always, be sure to leave
your objections in the comments which I'll either sustain or overrule. And stuck around until
the end of the video where I give the trial of
Frank Castle from Daredevil a grade for legal realism. So without further ado, let's dig into the trial of
Frank Castle on Daredevil. (handcuffs tapping) (suspenseful music) All right, this is kind
of an interesting scene that you don't see all that
often in legal procedurals. It takes a long time to get
a defendant out of the lockup to be ready for a court appearance. And often, if court appearances
are at eight or nine a.m., then you might have to wake
up at three or four o'clock in the morning and be transported from the jail over to the courthouse where your hearing is going to take place. So we actually saw this
in the Paul Manafort trial not too long ago where he waived his right to appear in person so that
he wouldn't have to go through all the rigmarole of getting
woken up, being transported, which can take hours from
the jail to the courthouse, and only to have some sort of
procedural hearing take place. And that's why often,
you'll see defendants waive their right to appear in court and you just let the
lawyers take care of it, unless it's really important
that the defendant be there, like the trial is starting. - If I get my hands on
the worthless intern who organized these files-- - I'm sure that intern's just
following the DA's orders. It's not officially sabotage. It just sets it back. - Well, it's a cheap trick. - (sighs) We've got bigger problems, like locking a defense. M'Naghten Rule is still our best bet. - What's that? - The insanity plea.
- Insanity plea. - Oh, whoa, guys. - We need to buy a not guilty verdict. A high school debate team
could prove that Castle did it. - Okay, a couple of problems here. Number one is that an insanity plea is very, very unlikely to work. The other problem is that New York actually does not follow
the M'Naghten Rule. New York follows a modified
version of the Model Penal Code. The Model Penal Code
is a theoretical rubric for potential criminal
laws that was created by a bunch of American scholars who saw that there were some issues
with some of the antiquated laws that the United States had at the time. And so they put together what they thought would be a Model Penal
Code for the country. And New York adopted a version of the text that's laid out by the Model Penal Code. The New York law requires
that a defendant prove by a preponderance of the evidence, because it's an affirmative defense, that at the time that the
defendant committed a crime that he or she lacked substantial
capacity to know either, one, the nature and
consequences of such conduct, or two, that such conduct
was actually wrong. The defendant can prove either prong and meet the requirements
of the insanity defense, but they have to prove that by a preponderance of the evidence. So it's up to the defendant to
prove their insanity defense. Now preponderance of the evidence is generally the standard
that we use in civil law. It just means more likely than not. So if you had both sides on a scale, the side that had slightly
more weight than the other one, that is a preponderance of the evidence. So it can be 51%. That's enough to tip the
scales in your favor. If you are the defendant
in a criminal case, you want the prosecution
to have all of the burden, and they have to prove all
the elements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a much, much higher standard than preponderance of the evidence. So that's the second issue with Matt and Foggy
deciding on whether to make a M'Naghten defense in this case. It doesn't work in New York. - Okay. And either way, we need an
opening statement tomorrow. - I can open with PTSD
as a mitigating factor, focus on Castle's time at war. - So you think the war is
what made Frank what he is. - Our only goal is to reduce
the charges and set precedent. Castle made a lot of enemies, all right? If he goes into general
population, he's as good as dead. We need to get him somewhere
safe where he can get help, and citing PTSD could do that. - I mean, none of us know
what Castle saw over there, but research suggests that PTSD can be triggered by new stressors. - Like losing your family. - I need to get to work
on the opening statement, but we need to be sure Castle
will get on board with this. - (sighs) I'll try. - So have they not spoken
to their client before? Pro tip, if trial is tomorrow,
you really, really, really need to talk to your client beforehand to know what your
defenses are going to be. - [Bailiff] All rise. Court is now in session. - All right, looks like a
pretty reasonable facsimile of a New York courthouse. - [Bailiff] Indictment number 19864447, the People versus Frank Castle. - [Judge] Be seated. - Looks like you're a man down.- - Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant has been indicted
for several serious crimes. But I'm instructing
you, as a point of law, that an indictment-- - You know those college stress dreams when you show up to your
class in your underwear? - Yeah. - That's me right now. - [Judge] Presumed innocent
until proven guilty. - Goddamn, Matt was supposed
to deliver opening, not me. - [Judge] Miss Reyes, are the People ready to begin opening statements? - I like that the judge
has already started instructing the jury here because so much of what
happens in an actual trial is really opaque to members of the jury. And so the judge always is
trying to do his or her best to hold the hand of the jury, to make sure that they
understand what's going on and they don't prejudge
anyone just because they happened to be, you know,
accused of some crime here. Now, it's odd that Frank Castle is still in his orange jumpsuit, and he is shackled to the table. If you were worried that
he was prone to violence and was a threat to someone, that would be a reason to
actually keep him in chains. But even under those circumstances, you would still probably
let him wear a suit to court so that he can at least
look semi respectable and not like an actual
criminal at that point. - Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Frank Castle brutally tortured
and murdered 30 people, 30 that we know of. - Oh, man, it's very argumentative
for an opening statement. - Acted as judge, jury and
the most violent executioner. - She's way too close to the jury, did not ask for permission
to enter the well. - And you will hear that the defendant's
victims were criminals. But the victims are not
on trial here today, and justice does not belong in the hands of a man like Frank Castle. This isn't the wild West. Justice is served here in a court of law, and
it is up to each of you to take back the city
from lawless vigilantes. - Ah, yeah. This is a pretty improper
opening statement. An opening statement is your
opportunity to give the jury a preview of what your
case is going to show. It's your opportunity
to establish a theme. But mostly, it's not for argument. It is for an opening statement to show what you intend to prove and to set the guidelines. But at the same time, you're not allowed to overly personalize the jury and make the jury overly emotional, especially in a capital
murder case like this. The defense should
really be objecting here because it's pretty improper. - [Judge] Mr. Nelson, are you prepared to make your opening statement? - She's good. - No, no, she's not. - Mr. Nelson? Mr. Nelson, are you reserving the right to make your statement at a later time? - Ooh, that's super cool. Yeah, okay. So what the judge asked there is a really interesting
piece of trial procedure that actually does
exist in the real world. The defense has the option to reserve their opening statement for the start of their case in chief. And if at the end of
the prosecution's case, they have not at least shown
beyond a reasonable doubt that the person being accused is guilty, then they have effectively failed and you can move from what's
called a directed verdict or a JNOV, which stops
the trial right there because the prosecution
didn't meet their burden. Now, you are allowed to
reserve your opening statement so that you can say that, okay, well, if the prosecution
has met their burden in the first instance, now
we're going to do our best to take the ball from
our side of the court and throw it back to the prosecution. And at that point, you can
lay out what your entire case is going to be in your
own opening statement. There are strategic reasons
why you would do this. Number one, if you don't have
a particularly good case, you might reserve your opening
statement to a later time. If you feel like the prosecution is really not going to be
able to meet their burden, you might reserve your statement for later to put all of the focus
on the prosecution's case. And given that the lead trial
counsel hasn't shown up, reserving your opening statement is probably a good way to go here. - So, you're 19, standing in hot sand, sun burning down, noise, yelling, gunfire. The only thing that you know for sure is that you're surrounded by
an enemy that wants you dead. - I don't Know that this is
necessarily argumentative. I mean, he's sort of talking about facts. And if you had prefaced this by saying that the evidence will
show this, this and this, you could probably get away with it. The problem is that in a case like this, the last thing that you would wanna do is bring in character evidence. I don't think that, number
one, that's relevant. And number two, when you do
that, it opens the floodgate. And man, the prosecution
would just bring in witness after witness showing
Frank Castle's bad character. So I think there are some
big strategic problems with Foggy's opening statement here. - But you do it. You endure it. Why? Because you have orders. And you have a duty. - What does that have to do with anything? - Your life doesn't end here. You have people you love waiting at home. Because aside from being
a decorated marine, the man before you is a good husband and an excellent father. - Okay, so he's going hard into the good character right now. - Returned from the hell of war wanting nothing more
than to pick up his life. But his wife, young son and daughter were brutally murdered by criminals, and no one, not the police and (scoffs) certainly
not the District Attorney, stepped up to make it right. See, Frank Castle never came home. He just traded in one
war zone for another. This trial-- - Ah, Matt Murdock shows up way too late. - It's about the failure
of the justice system and how one man, Frank Castle,
is being used as a pawn to cover up that system's mistakes. - Huh. So that's not a great theme. I mean, it's okay. You wanna focus on the government's burden to prove their case
beyond reasonable doubt. But Foggy hasn't given the jury something to hang their hat on. If you can rely on good character
and that's all you have, then that's all you have. So you go after Frank's good character and you say that that's a
mitigating circumstance, but yeah, I don't think that's a very good opening statement. - Where the hell have you been? - Look, I made a mistake, Karen. I feel terrible about it. But Foggy, I caught some
of your opening statement. You did great. - It was amazing. - Hey, hey, thanks for
keeping us afloat, buddy. - Okay. So if you are lead trial counsel
in a capital murder case, I think missing the opening statement that you were supposed to give is probably grounds for malpractice. I wonder if Daredevil, Matt Murdock is canonically a good
lawyer in the comics. You know what? Let me get an expert on this. Hey, Matt. Can you help out a sec? - Thanks, Devon. As a longtime Daredevil
fan and fellow Matt myself, I feel uniquely qualified to say that Daredevil should be one of, if not the greatest fictional
lawyers of all time, He's very intelligent. He graduated from Columbia Law School. He's also an amazing detective. And most notably, the accident
that blinded Matt as a child gave him heightened senses,
one of which is super hearing which he's able to use to
his advantage during trials. Matt can hear a heartbeat
from across a room, which he uses kind of
like a human lie detector. He can tell if a juror is on his side and potentially change his
argument to win more support. He can also tell if a witness
is lying or telling the truth. He's essentially psychic. However, the biggest obstacle
between Matt and legal success is frequently Matt himself. He has a strong sense of
Catholic guilt that often forces him to take on lost
causes that he can't win. Also, Matt's double life
as Daredevil forces him to split his time between
being a lawyer and a vigilante, which in some cases has
forced him to lose clients and even lose cases. In conclusion, based off the comics, when you take into
account his intelligence and his super hearing, Matt
Murdock should be one of, if not the best fictional
lawyers of all time. - Thanks, Nando. I guess now I know never
to hire Matt Murdock. - Dr. Gregory Tepper,
how long have you been medical examiner for the city of New York? - 14 years, give or take. - And how many death certificates would you estimate you've
signed in that time? - Huh? Um, I don't, uh-- - It's probably in the tens of thousands. - Objection, Your Honor,
leading the witness. - (laughs) Oh, my god. That is such a stupid objection. Cross examination is supposed
to be all leading questions. And on top of that, this would be a really, really softball
question for a medical examiner. A medical examiner testifies a lot. I mean, part of their job is to testify in these kinds of criminal cases, so they're gonna have a lot of experience, especially someone who has
been the medical examiner of the city of New York for 14 years. So he would have a ballpark figure for the number of death
certificates that he signed a lot because that's a question
that's going to come up in a cross examination like this where you're allowed to lead the witness. - I have something I need to say. - Doctor? - Your Honor, I'm sorry, but
I have to, on the record. I need to say something about what I did. - Clear the gallery. - Yes, Your Honor. All jury members, please exit
back to the deliberation room. Everyone in the gallery, please make your way out of
the courtroom at this time. - What? Why are they taking Frank Castle out? He's the defendant. He definitely gets to stay at this point. - Your Honor, I believe the defense intends to distract the
jury and make this case about some impossible-to-prove
conspiracy theories. - Impossible to prove? Your ME just confirmed that he
doctored the autopsy records. - Yeah, Murdock is totally right there. - If my office finds out that your firm had anything to do with this-- - Our firm? For all we know, it was
you who sent those goons. - I've heard enough. It's clear to me that
whatever Dr. Tepper may know about these autopsy
reports has been tainted by threats made by person
or persons unknown. - Then the defense asks for a mistrial. - Not on your life, Mr. Nelson. - What? - I'm still not convinced these documents, whatever they may be, are
even relevant to this trial. I'm striking the doctor's entire testimony and instructing the jurors to disregard anything they may have heard. - Okay, a couple of different
things going on here. The judge is probably right that the medical examiner's testimony about Frank's family is not relevant. That being said, in this particular trial, this is the medical examiner
that not only examined Frank's family and conducted the autopsies on Frank's family, but he
also conducted the autopsies on all of the victims. The medical examiner has been
testifying for probably days. I mean, I know they're shooting
it as a matter of hours, but this kind of testimony
over the deaths of 17 people plus Frank's family,
that's gonna take days, and he's gonna be a very,
very important witness for the state. It's incredibly unfair, I
would say clearly prejudicial, for the state to be able to show the jury the testimony of this medical examiner and then prevent the defense from being able to cross
examine the medical examiner. You are constitutionally
allowed to face your accusers. And it's crazy for the judge not to declare a mistrial right now. The jury has been tainted. You can't unring that bell, and there's no way to go forward. I think if you were the
prosecution, you'd be pissed too because without the medical
examiner's testimony, I'm not sure how you prove up your case. - I wonder if you could tell us how Lieutenant Frank
Castle won the Navy Cross? - Due to the nature of that mission, you'll have to understand that the precise
circumstances are classified. - How about the part that's not? - Lieutenant Frank Castle
was part of a small team. He was conducting a close
target reconnaissance in the vicinity of the Hindu Kush. The mission became compromised, taking enemy contact on three sides. Lieutenant Castle wanted to abort, said the mission was a bust, pulling the plug would save lives. Officer in charge said no. - I feel like this is
that scene out of Airplane where the wife is asking Striker about what he's going to do. And he says-- - My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots
at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the
north, below their radar. - And she says-- - When will you be back? - I can't tell you that. It's classified. - Precise circumstances are classified. - It really seems like this
character has just talked about a whole bunch of classified information and there can't possibly be
any classified information left that he hasn't already
divulged to the jury. - My father served in Vietnam. Do you know what he told me about medals? - No, ma'am. - He said the only people
who truly know what happened are the ones that were there. You told a nice story, Colonel, but how can we know that it
happened the way you described? - Well, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was there, ma'am. That officer that didn't listen to Frank, got his men trapped,
you're looking at him. - This is a great dramatic scene, I mean, regardless of legal accuracy. I just, I love the turnaround here. This is a great example
of the legal truism that you do not ask question
on cross examination that you don't already know the answer to. - Are you aware that Frank
Castle's wife, son, and daughter were all murdered right in front of him when he sustained the
brain injury in question, an injury which you say keeps
him in a perpetual state of mental and emotional chaos? - I am, yes. - With that in mind, would you say that Frank Castle's mental
state satisfies the definition of extreme emotional disturbance? - Objection, calls for a conclusion. - Your Honor, Dr. Lee is
an expert on the brain. He is qualified to an opinion, and said opinion is not only relevant but imperative to the case. - Okay, so this is a really
interesting objection here. I think they're a little
confused on the terminology but this kind of objection makes sense. So you are allowed to call experts, and experts are allowed to opine
in a way that lay witnesses are not allowed to
opine when they testify. That's really the whole
point of an expert. That being said, generally speaking, witnesses are not allowed to opine as to what we call the
ultimate issue in the case. So you can't ask a witness, "Do you think the defendant is guilty?" Well, guilt is one of the
ultimate issues in a case. And if you are arguing
insanity, for example, you can't say, "Does that
mean that the defendant "is actually insane," for the
purposes of the insanity plea, because that's the ultimate
issue, and only the jury is able to decide the ultimate issues. If emotional disturbance is an ultimate issue
for the trier of fact, then it would be improper
for the expert to opine. But if emotional disturbance
is a neurological term that is sort of a stepping
stone for whatever legal issue that they are trying to
prove, then it would be okay for this neurologist
to make that testimony. - Mr. Castle, you've been charged with multiple capital
crimes, been called a killer incapable of empathy or remorse. - Hmm. Yeah, so I hear. - Frank, may I call you Frank? - Yeah. - That's good. You wanna humanize your defendant. - Frank, we've heard a
lot about neurochemistry and psychology, and all things unfolding, scientifically and
otherwise, inside your brain, but I just have one
question I want to ask. - I hate it when people
say they have one question because it's never just one question. - What happened that day, the day your family was
so tragically killed. It's okay, Frank. I understand it's difficult. - Do you? Do you understand? 'Cause I don't think you understand shit. - I'd like permission to treat the witness
as hostile, Your Honor? - Okay, so this is actually a good example of when you can actually
treat a witness as hostile. It's a request that's made
in legal dramas all the time, but they usually get it wrong. Here, they basically get it right. All it means to treat a witness as hostile is to be able to ask
them leading questions. Yes, it is a witness
that you have provided, but they're being obstreperous in a way that they are not answering open-ended, non-leading questions. So you ask permission from the judge to ask leading questions that would normally not be
allowed on direct examination. Now, that being said,
it's always, always risky to put a criminal defendant on the stand. When your witness stops complying with your softball questions, you know you're in the danger zone and you really just
have to cut your losses. - I'm gonna tell you exactly
what kind of man you are. - No, you're not allowed to do that. You still have to ask questions. - You're the kind of man this city needs, because, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we all know this city
needs help, needs it now. Not tomorrow, not next week,
not when the day comes, when the corruption that
Wilson Fisk left in his wake-- - Yeah, objection, argument. - 'Cause this city's been sick. And the cops, they can't fix it alone. They need, we all need men and women-- - This is totally improper, 100% improper. - Who risk their lives so that we can walk safe at
night in our own neighborhoods, the ones our esteemed
District Attorney here is trying so hard to destroy. New York needs these people. We need-- - It's hard for me to even watch this because it's so cringe inducing. (crowd applauds) - [Judge] Order! - Okay, and now we're gonna applaud the speech that's being made in the middle of a direct examination. The judge would not allow this. The prosecution would be objecting. - [Frank] Your Honor, can I say something? - [Judge] You may. - You know those, uh, those people, the ones I put
down, the people I killed? I want you to know that
I'd do it all again. (crowd gasps) This is a circus, all right? It's a charade. It's an act. This (beep) about how crazy I am.
- Language. - I ain't crazy. - And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't put a
defendant on the stand unless you absolutely have to. Bad idea. (whimsical music) Okay, that was the trial of Frank Castle in Marvel's Daredevil. (gavel bangs) A lot of good stuff, a lot of bad stuff, definitely interesting to watch since I haven't seen it in a while. On the plus side, they have some really
interesting arguments. They treated the witness as
hostile in the correct way. They have some good back and forth about the different
burdens that are required, whether you're the defense
or the prosecution. it's some interesting expert testimony. On the other hand, man! You can't make a speech in
the middle of an examination. That's insane. There's so much procedurally going wrong. This trial would have taken months, and they're really just shortening it for dramatic effect, obviously. So overall, I give the trial
of Frank Castle a solid C. It's okay. It needs some work, but it's entertaining. - All right. I get the hint. - You know, one way that Matt Murdock is able to accomplish so
much in so little time is by listening to audiobooks. Lately, I've been listening to Marvel Comics: The
Untold Story on Audible. It's an amazing behind
the scenes chronicle of one of the most extraordinary, beloved and dominant pop cultural entities in American history, Marvel Comics. It's the fascinating story of how Marvel went from bankruptcy to cultural juggernaut, pun intended. - I'm the Juggernaut (beep)! - It incorporates hundreds of interviews with people like Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and all those people that
work behind the scenes to create what Marvel Comics is today. It even answers some of the questions you never knew you had. Like whose dumb idea was it to give Spiderman a
SpiderMobile in the '70s? Why did Captain America,
Iron Man and Sub-Mariner suddenly all get solo titles in 1968? And why was Secret Wars such
a terribly written story? Audible is giving Legal Eagles like you a free 30-day trial with two
free originals to go with it so you too can listen to
marvel: The Untold Story. All you need to do is go
to Audible.com/LegalEagle or text LegalEagle to 500 500. You can download any
audiobook of your choosing and get two originals free. Clicking on the link really
helps out this channel. So check out Marvel: The
Untold Story on Audible. Just head over to Audible.com/LegalEagle, text LegalEagle to 500 5500, or just click the link in the description. Do you agree with my grade? Leave your objections in the comments, and check out this playlist over here with my other Real Lawyer Reactions where I will see you in court.
Yes! I've been wanting this since I found the guy's channel.