The Legal Geeks

Recorded Live at the Southeast District BAR Association (SEDBA) meeting on June 26, 2019. What best practices for closing arguments can be learned from attorney movies and TV shows? Attorneys Megan Hitchcock and Joshua Gilliland take a deep dive into strategies and ethical requirements for preparing closing arguments using the following pop culture examples: 

A Time to Kill

The Practice, Pilot Episode

The Verdict

For the People

The Rainmaker 

American Crime Story-The People Vs O.J Simpson 

The People vs. Larry Flynt

To Kill a Mockingbird

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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

Nari Ely, Esq., joined Joshua Gilliland to review Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Could Emma Russell be charged with child endangerment? Just because Allen Jonah called himself an eco-terrorist, does he actually meet the legal definition of a terrorist? Did San Francisco get condemned after Godzilla 2014? If the City by the Bay could no longer be inhabited, were there any legal remedies for those who had to leave their homes (and hearts) in San Francisco? Join Nari and Josh as they geek out over these issues and more from Godzilla: King of the Monsters. 

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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

NY Judge Matthew Sciarrino and Jessica Mederson, Esq., discuss the Good Omens TV show on Amazon. 

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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

Who pays the clean-up costs for Acts of Godzilla? Does Gamera have a duty to save children? And is King Kong an Endangered Species? Josh and Nari tackle these issues in an all out lawyer attack in Kaiju Law.

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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

Using Marvel stories to understand how the legal process really works is as easy as snapping your fingers. Yes Dr. Strange is a superhero, but find out how he saved the world using contract law. Was Star-Lord really the rightful owner of the Morag Infinity Stone, do the Sokovia Accords pass the Constitutional test, and how, exactly, do we prosecute Thanos? Get ready for Marvel’s Endgame with a rollicking review of legal issues from the Marvel Universe.

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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

Tune in True Believers for a spoiler filled episode reviewing Avengers Endgame? From justified killings to whether victims of “The Snap” were legally dead, we geek out over Endgame, the law, and out thoughts on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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

Recorded live at WonderCon on March 31, 2019

Holy Liability! Lawyers answer the Bat-Signal to debate the greatest legal issues from Bat-tastic stories across comics, animation, television, and movies, over the last 80 years! How could the Gotham police in 1966 deputize vigilantes without violating the Constitution? What is the liability for a crime-fighting vigilante for the death of a child sidekick? What are the legal issues for a mental hospital acting as a prison for super-villains? Find out from our panel of attorneys including Steve Chu, Courtney McNulty, Jordon Huppert, and Joshua Gilliland. Moderated by Matt Weinhold of MonsterParty and brought to you by The Legal Geeks.

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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

Just what is the legal status of Goose? Join Jessica Mederson and Joshua Gilliland as they review Captain Marvel for legal analysis. What does the War of 1812 have to do with the movie? Are Skrulls refugees? Tune in as Jess and Josh share their thoughts on Captain Marvel. 

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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

A mock trial based upon Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on a Serious Earth featuring law students from Golden Gate University, California Western School of Law, and the University of Kentucky. Recorded live at San Diego Comic Fest on March 9, 2019. 

Overview of Facts:  

Harvey Dent had his silver dollar taken away as part of his treatment at Arkham Asylum. Psychotherapist Ruth Adams claimed Dent was being “cured” of his obsession with duality. Dent’s treatment was replacing his coin with a six-sided die and then Tarot cards. Dr. Adams next stage of treatment was to introduce Dent to I-Ching. Dr. Adams believed Dent would have a completely functional judgment facility that did not result in black and white absolutes.

Result of Treatment: 

Dent was unable to make basic decisions, such as when to go to the bathroom. The treatment left Dent hollow and sitting under a table the day the inmates took over asylum.  

The Lawsuit: 

Attorneys retained by the Wayne Foundation have brought 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 lawsuit against Arkham Asylum, the late Arkham Administrator Charles Cavendish, Dr. Ruth Adams, and DOES 1-50, claiming that Harvey Dent’s treatment violated the 8th and 14th Amendments. Dent’s attorneys have claimed Dr. Cavendish and Dr. Adams demonstrated a “deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness” and subjected Dent to "the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" by taking away his coin. Attorneys for the state have brought a summary judgment motion on the grounds that Dent’s coin was not taken away as a form of punishment, but a form of treatment.

Attorneys retained by the Wayne Foundation on Dent’s behalf have brought suit against Arkham Asylum, the late Arkham Administrator Charles Cavendish, Dr. Ruth Adams, and DOES 1-50, claiming that Dent’s treatment violated the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Defendants have argued that Dent’s coin was not taken away as a form of punishment, but a form of treatment.

Arguments by Parties 

The Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary instruction against Arkham Asylum to cease any treatments on Harvey Dent that deprive him of his coin. The Plaintiff will argue that Arkham Asylum, the late Arkham Administrator Charles Cavendish, and Dr. Ruth Adams, were all deliberately indifferent to Harvey Dent’s medical condition, that the treatment amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, and that a preliminary injunction is needed in order to prevent further cruelty to Harvey Dent.   

The Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that Harvey Dent’s treatment was not punishment or deliberate indifference to the patient’s medical needs, therefore there is not a likelihood of success on the merits, risk of irreparable harm, the balance of equities and hardships do not tip in the plaintiff's favor, and an injunction is not in the public interest.

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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

The Law Strikes Back with Thomas Harper at Nerd Nite Philadelphia!  

Send us Fan Mail

Support the show

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