The Multiverse and Res Judicata

In an infinite number of parallel universes, parallel versions of a supervillain will commit or attempt the same crime simultaneously only to be foiled by parallel versions of the same superhero.  Is there a good argument for trying the villain once and applying the verdict interdimensionally?  I think so, and in this post we consider the application of the res judicata doctrines of issue preclusion and claim preclusion to the Multiverse.

Many comic book series do not occur in a single, isolated universe but rather in a host of parallel universes, alternate dimensions, and Bizarro Worlds collectively referred to as the Multiverse.  Crossovers aside, both DC and Marvel series occur within their own respective multiverses.  For the sake of reference, the various parallel universes in these multiverses are numbered.  For example, the ‘normal’ world is Earth-616 in the Marvel Multiverse and Earth-0 or New Earth in the DC Multiverse.  There are an infinite number of such parallel worlds, most differing only in comparatively slight respects (e.g. the victory of the Axis powers in Earth-10; all of history up until that point was essentially the same).  So that’s the Multiverse.  On to the law.

Ordinarily, courts only like to consider a given issue or claim once.  This is done out of consideration of judicial efficiency, cost reduction, and finality.  The Supreme Court recently summarized issue preclusion thusly: “once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision…preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.” San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 336 n.16 (2005).

The Court summarized the distinction between the two doctrines in another case: “Claim preclusion generally refers to the effect of a prior judgment in foreclosing successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit. Issue preclusion generally refers to the effect of a prior judgment in foreclosing successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, whether or not the issue arises on the same or a different claim.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748-49 (2001).  The Court has also applied claim preclusion to criminal cases. United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85 (1916).

So what does this have to do with the Multiverse?  Consider Lex Luthor, plotting a dastardly scheme to stop Superman’s meddling once and for all.  As is so often the case, his plot will be foiled, and he will be brought to justice.  But Lex would have attempted the same plot in an infinite number of parallel worlds which differed only in ways that were immaterial to the plot and its prevention.  In the interests of cost savings, judicial efficiency, and finality, should the various Lex Luthors not be tried once, simultaneously, for all of them, both for criminal charges and civil claims brought against them?

The intuitive answer would seem to be yes, but there is a complication.  Which jurisdiction should be favored?  Or perhaps the better question is which jurisdiction should be forced into it, since that jurisdiction alone will bear the cost of the proceedings; it is not in any jurisdiction’s interest to volunteer.  But given the potentially infinite number of candidate jurisdictions, a random choice doesn’t make sense either: how can you fairly pick a number between 0 and infinity?

I think the solution is an Interdimensional Court of Justice, which would hear significant cases that would be too onerous for any one world to bear the cost of hosting or in which there would be a large efficiency gain in hearing the case only once.  A world that wished to have its version of a supervillain included in a case would chip in to help fund the IdCJ.  Since there could theoretically be an infinite number of such worlds, each world would only need to contribute an infinitesimally small amount.  Of course, coordination might be a problem.  In practice however, there only seem to be a few dozen parallel universes of any significance in the DC and Marvel multiverses, which makes the coordination problem much more manageable.

34 responses to “The Multiverse and Res Judicata

  1. …would it be the same defendant, or would the rules permit joinder? How much different would the plots have to be to not arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact?

  2. Not to mention, where in the continuum of Luther-0 to his “evil” (good) alternate self do we draw the line as to who should be tried & punished? Don’t forget the characters themselves can also be the variables between universes.

    • The idea is to consolidate cases in which the alleged criminal act or civil wrong did not differ in any material way between parallel universes. The standard would have to be pretty strict so as allow a single, joint trial to proceed in a just and efficient manner. Anything more than trivial differences between the parallel bad acts would require separate trials or at least separate defenses, which would defeat the purpose.

      The good version of an Earth-0 villain wouldn’t be brought to trial because he or she presumably wouldn’t’ve committed the alleged crime in his or her home universe. He or she wouldn’t even be a suspect.

      I envision the process more less like this: the authorities on Earth-n arrest a supervillain; the case is significant enough to benefit from Interdimensional treatment and brought to the IdCJ’s attention; the IdCJ collects together identical cases and tries them as one. Indeed, if you think about it, if the circumstances are truly identical then all the various parallel universes will present the case to the IdCJ simultaneously since the authorities will also be acting identically.

      • One problem i see with this solution is that this court will be swamped by petitions from each individual attempting to force the court to determine whether or not their specific difference is sufficiently mAterial so as to distinguish it and make it a separate trial. Particularly since we try to honour the criminal defendant’s right to defense, it would seem to undermine the client’s right if we consolidate their case with other similar cases. Certainly as a hypothetical we would assume that only cases with trivial differences wouod be consolidated. But each difference in and of itsself would seem to be an issueof triable fact in contention, the core issue of which is the judgement of materiality. I see only two ways around this, either suppress the right of the defendant to challenge, which seems to fundamentally restrict their american constituional rights, or entertain every motion with a trial, a cumbersome process in and of itself. Whilst this may still save time and money, it focuses all the stress on one judicial body, as opposed to the diffussion of e stress among many juducial bodies. P.s. I apologize for the lack of spacing, but my ipad is not particularly conducive to typing

      • Please ignore my post. I just scrolled through the essays and treatises below. This question is obviously Been debated by keener minds than mine. I woukd still be interested to see your thoughts regarding the efficiency point though, because even though you mention that frivolous motions can be sanctioned, one would expect a man of, say, lex luthor’s calbir to be able to fashion at least a good faith Argument as to why his spe ific deviation qualifies as material. Good lawyering, after all, seems to be quite in abundande where criminal geniuses are concerned.

  3. But you’re treating it as given that the crimes are identical across universes (maybe pronounced on high from the IdCJ). To be legitimate, shouldn’t that fact have to be demonstrated in court for every single universe, eliminating most cost savings?

    • There are two ways to address that. First, the simultaneous arrival of a request for an IdCJ hearing is prima facie evidence that the universes are identical with respect to the crime. It would be a mind-boggling coincidence that an identical request came in at the same time regarding the same defendant who was alleged to have committed the same crime at the same time, yet the underlying facts were different in some material way that affected the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The burden would be on the defendant to show that he or she should not be part of the defendant class.

      Second, one could assume the existence of some technology or super-power that allows the IdCJ to know exactly when a given parallel universe split off from another, which would help answer the question of whether it would even be possible for a given universe differed in a material way with regard to the crime. Hand-waving, I know, but surely someone has such a power or that level of knowledge. The Watchers, maybe.

      • A mind-boggling coincidence, yes… assuming nobody’s abusing their power. Assuming there’s no shades-of-gray Superman out there who knows his Luthor is about to commit something heinous and figures this is an easy way to prevent it. Etc., etc. “Innocent until proven guilty” is too important a principle to wave aside for a set of assumptions about alternate universes. (And even in the comic-book multiverse, what’s known about AUs isn’t necessarily more than a set of assumptions – has anyone actually gone through and verified that these universes are near-identical?)

      • The innocent-until-proven-guilty principle is still intact. The prosecution would still have to prove its case against the defendants; the defendants would just be tried together. And if any given defendant has evidence that he or she does not belong in the class or did not commit the crime, then that can still be presented. Since whether the defendant belongs to the class or not is not actually an element of the crime, I believe the prosecutor would only have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (following US rules). It seems safe to assume that identical complaints showing up at the same time would meet that burden.

  4. I’ll give you all of your fancy universe splitting know how.

    The main problem I have with this is how you’re saying it would be the defendants job to prove they shouldn’t be tried in the group.

    It would make perfect sense for the Luthor of every universe to say he shouldn’t be part of the group trial. He’s smart enough to realize this is a good plan.

    Since the IdCJ doesn’t have anything over it they have to be really careful not to abuse their power. So you’d have to hear the case for every Luthor.

    While our Luthor is pleading his case, all of the other Luthors are sitting around waiting.

    If they wait on their home universe than there’s nothing really stopping them from getting out of jail.

    I guess they could have a holding area along with the IdCJ. But this is a comic we’re talking about. It would make a much better story for this detail to be overlooked and problems to arise because of that.

    And if the IdCJ can know when universes split, it doesn’t seem that far fetched of an idea for the Luthors of multiple universes to be able to communicate somehow. Setting up a crime chain where each crime happens on a different day or with just enough detail changed so that they aren’t considered the same crime.

    • Why wouldn’t it be each defendant’s job to prove that he or she shouldn’t be part of the defendant class? As I said, the probability of an identical criminal complaint showing up at the IdCJ at the same time from several universes is very remote unless the crimes were in fact identical. And while each Luthor might try to argue he shouldn’t be part of the defendant class, it takes more than mere argument to move the burden of proof. The Luthors would have to show evidence that either the crime or the defendant himself was materially different (e.g. different time, circumstances, DNA, what-have-you). Making frivolous arguments without evidence would be a recipe for sanctions or being held in contempt.

      You raise an interesting point with the idea of cross-dimensional communication between Luthors, but there is a solution. That very communication would be solid evidence of a conspiracy to commit the actual crime (theft, killing Superman, whatever), which is itself a crime. So while the Luthors might not be considered a defendant class for the charge of the underlying crime itself, they would be a defendant class for the charge of conspiracy to commit the underlying crime. Not a perfect solution, but it’s something.

      But yes, if this idea were adapted in an actual comic it would almost certainly gloss over these procedural details.

      • > As I said, the probability of an identical criminal complaint showing up at the IdCJ at the same time from several universes is very remote unless the crimes were in fact identical

        You postulated an infinite number of universes; so there are going to be an infinite subset of universes where a freak lab accident causes a criminal complaint to materialize out of nowhere at the IdCJ, equal in cardinality to the infinite subset where the complaint really did come from another universe, which is equal in cardinality to the infinite subset where the IdCJ really did come but was mistaken, which is equal…

        And then there’s the infinite subset of universes where the possible culprit experiences remorse and a change of heart and never commits the crime, and endless infinite subsets where causal necessity (bad traffic, power outages, etc.) prevent the crime from occurring but which are otherwise identical.

        There’s no way around it. Over all universes, you don’t know the crime will occur until after it occurs. Which moots the issue entirely.

      • The number of parallel universes may or may not be infinite. Certainly Marvel and DC only deal with a relatively small number of them, but enough that one would still expect at least some significant parallel crimes to occur. But if the number of parallel universes is infinite, then you’ve made a serious counter-argument to the practicality of the whole scheme. Thanks for sharing it!

  5. Pingback: He's not a state actor, he's the goddam Batman! at Sore Eyes

  6. Interestingly John Locke addressed this very same question in 1690. He worried whether judgments in the afterlife (effectively a parallel universe) had anything to do with actions on earth. He said they do only if it’s the same person getting tried & doing the crime, and for that there had to be a direct nexus with their shared consciousness & memory. While that might work for the afterlife where such a nexus (is supposed to) exists, I shouldn’t apply to the parallel universe case where they may even be the same cns & memory but there’s no nexus between them. Both the cns and memory of both Luthors, even if identical in content, are nevertheless independent, free-standing entities in their causal history (the action of L1 didn’t cause the memory of L2). Not the same person=no res judicata; everyone gets their own trial for their own crime.

    • That’s a compelling philosophical argument, but there are three ways to skirt it.

      First, the doctrine of res judicata has always been a balancing act between justice and judicial efficiency, cost reduction, and finality. I think a comics universe court could find that the balance was acceptable here.

      Second, independently of res judicata the law allows for defendant class actions. Though rare compared to the more common plaintiff class action, defendant class actions allow one or a few defendants to represent the interest of other, similarly-situated but distinct defendants. I believe this only applies to civil cases, however, so it would take some wrangling to extend the concept to criminal cases. So even given Locke’s objection there would be an alternative way to try cases together.

      Third, depending on the nature of the parallel universes, there may actually be a nexus between them. This is particularly true if the Many Worlds Interpretation is true.

      Consider Luthor Prime, who is in the middle of committing a series of related criminal acts (e.g., stealing various items from the same museum in the same burglary). Then, a quantum event occurs in the Andromeda galaxy, causing a new parallel universe to come into existence, including a parallel Luthor 2. Luthor Prime and Luthor 2 complete the museum theft in exactly the same way, since Luthor 2 would be completely unaffected by the quantum event in Andromeda. Indeed, he could not be affected by it since none of its effects could propagate faster than the speed of light, and Andromeda is 2.5 million light-years away.

      In this scenario, Luthor Prime and Luthor 2 do have a shared memory and causal history. Surely they could be tried together for the crimes already committed at the point of divergence, and I think a good argument could be made for trying them for the crimes committed afterward.

      However, things get more complicated if the universes exist independently ab initio and are only coincidentally similar. In that case, Locke’s objection would have some merit, though as I said I don’t think it would be fatal to the concept of an IdCJ.

  7. Problems:

    1) While the pretrial evidence would be identical in you setup. The defense would be permitted to submit their own evidence at trial. If you have the same witness from different universes giving conflicting evidence how do you resolve it? A Vote? Do you split the trial?

    2) The defense would be permitted the same economies of scale as the prosecution. Even the most petty criminal would have the means to hire a universe’s best lawyer with thousands of law clerks to do research and create every motion imaginable. If you studied calculus then understand that even if you have values approaching infinity on both sides of an equation they don’t always cancel out.

    3) It is easier for an infinite array of Lex Luthors to bribe a judge, jury member, witness, or prosecutor than for them to bribe an infinite array of people.

    Bonus Problem) I think it would be very likely that the judge, prosecutor, and the defense attorney would all be the same person from different universes.

    • If you have the same witness from different universes giving conflicting evidence how do you resolve it?

      I suspect the IdCJ would have an exclusionary rule like FRE 403 and only allow a single instance of a given witness to testify at the actual trial. If the universes are identical in every relevant respect, then the testimony of additional witness instances would be completely cumulative.

      Pre-trial, however, the testimony of individual witness instances would be permitted to establish that the universes differ in a material respect and thus that a given defendant is not properly part of the defendant class.

      Even the most petty criminal would have the means to hire a universe’s best lawyer with thousands of law clerks to do research and create every motion imaginable.

      The IdCJ would necessarily have an extremely streamlined motion practice and a very strict version of Rule 11.

      It is easier for an infinite array of Lex Luthors to bribe a judge, jury member, witness, or prosecutor than for them to bribe an infinite array of people.

      That is a very real problem that I had not considered. You make a good point. I could hand-wave and say that the IdCJ would be staffed by powerful trans-dimensional beings who are not so easily swayed even by a multitude of Lex Luthors, but that’s not very satisfying.

  8. Given a multiverse of functionally identical Lex Luthors wouldn’t that group of Luthors have an equal protection claim against whatever jurisdiction was attempting to try them? The claims that would be made by the IdCJ seem like a textbook violation.

    • Could you expand on this?

      • The standard for selective prosecution draws strongly from the standards established for the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Being a group of Lex Luthors from various universes would, to my way of thinking, be “an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification” for the purposes of prosecution.

  9. David Lewis has considered the question of identity across a multiverse, and gives good reasons for not considering individuals in two worlds, though those individuals being effectively the same if their worlds differ only in some minute detail (an extra hydrogen atom in the Horsehead nebula, for example), to be considered identical. The merit of a case against each Luthor should be considered in that respective universe, and are effectively irrelevant in others.

    We’ll have to bend the definition of a universe to consider an interdimensional court, but here goes:
    In the case where the elements of said multiverse are not wholly separate, such as when it is possible for communications to transpire across universe boundaries or for individuals to hop universes, what exists are only ersatz possible worlds, whose representations necessarily exist inside of the outer world of truth, a world which contains what *actually happens*, including alternate representations of universes. In other words, this outer universe is what connects all the ersatz worlds, and is what communications and objects must pass through when they go across universe boundaries. Such an outer world is necessarily large enough to contain all the ersatz universes, and since it is possible to move things from an ersatz world into the outer world, any resources necessary for such a colossal courtroom could be acquired with enough effort (the combined effort of some reasonable number of individuals in every ersatz world where that many individuals exist would be enough, I would think). Thus, we have a super-courtroom to hear such cases, and the question of which universe hosts the court is not an issue, as there is only one outermost world.

  10. Charles Robertson

    There are a few small problems with the notion of an IdCJ organization. First, with no shared space between universe, there is no solid basis for simultaneity of events. Travel between dimensions pre-supposes travel in time as well. For example, Marvel Universe 928 is “the same as 616, up until… and also in the year 2099 at the time certain of its people interacted with people of Earth 616, which was at that time in the year 1992.” The procedural issue of lining up “the same time” across different but similar universes being set aside, as well as cherry-picking realities with a shared legal tradition and the exact same sets of laws applicable to the case (among potentially infinite), there is also the more fundamental issue that the multiverse is based on realities which are “the same, except different.” While efficiency gains increase with the number of similar realities, the chance of similar cases with glaring exceptions also arise. There is a greater chance that much of the body of evidence could be coincidental, and that the entire body of evidence is necessary to form a basis for a conviction. If any of it is absent, or additional evidence is present, the court must wonder if their Luthor is an exceptional cases to that ruled upon.

    Now, it has been stated above that you could add accused to and removed them from the group of persons liable under a verdict based on preponderance of evidence rather than the stronger requirement of reasonable doubt. The evidence is inherently at risk, however, in any case in which cross-dimensional communications become an issue. That is because time travel is always an issue with inter-dimensional communications — and is likely possible in a very controlled way given the kind of communications that would be necessary to support a sort of IdCJ organization — thus raising the risk that an interested party could alter the evidence before it is even collected. In such a case, any reasonable defense could be expected to point out that his client is potentially a victim of planted evidence. This is not generally an issue if there is no IdCJ; in that case the conviction of Lex Luthor 1 does nothing to help Superman 2 imprison his foe, and the matter for evidential credibility and risk of contamination is resolved as normal. If an IdCJ verdict can affect innumerable Luthors — and help innumerable crusading Supermen — then there is a good chance at least one of them will consider framing a Luthor hitherto completely unknown to him. The system is easy to abuse, and credibility of the evidence must be investigated by the court, with a specific eye towards a specific Lex Luthor to determine whether he truly falls into the accused group.

    The Many Worlds nature of the DC and Marvel Multiverses make small exceptions in otherwise similar narratives not only likely, but a completely necessary. There are possibly infinite Luthors who fall on the fringes: in danger of conviction for a crime they in fact really didn’t commit, based on coincidental evidence, which is possibly augmented by interested parties with cross-dimensional-cross-time planted evidence.

  11. Marvel Comics has the Living Tribunal which is responsible for overseeing many interdimensional disputes. That would be a natural court for trying supervillains. But it takes a lot to get to the attention of the Living Tribunal.

  12. Wouldn’t the cost of interdimensional transport be higher than the cost of the proceedings? Also, wouldn’t every lower court try to get every crime tried multidimensionally for the same reason? John Doe 1 robbed a liquor store… well so did the John Doe from universes 2 – 999, and then again from 1013 – infinity… shouldn’t we try them all together?

    • As you say, the cost of interdimensional transport is likely to be high. The efficiency gains would probably only outweigh the costs for serious crimes (e.g. ones that threaten the entire planet).

  13. Wouldn’t it make more sense to reserve the IdCJ for instances such as “Crisis on Infinite Earths” where the entire multiverse is threatened?

    If strikingly similar bank robberies occured in three different states on the same day, but there was no prior collusion between the perpetrators, would the federal courts get involved? No matter how similar the robberies are, without collusion across state lines, it wouldn’t make much sense.

  14. “Wolverine is one of a number of comic book characters who is extremely difficult to kill. It has been theorized that it would take decapitation followed by immediate removal of his head from the vicinity of his body to effectively kill him.”
    Just clearing up this first statement. Wolverine was killed in “Days of Future Past” alternate universe when his flesh was completely burned off this adamatium skeleton by a Sentinel. 😉

  15. Keeping in mind that I have no legal training whatsoever, I see a few additional problematic assumptions.

    – Common legal traditions. Over at DC, there’s normal-Earth, real-world-Earth, animal-Earth, Nazi-Earth, Victorian-Earth, magic-Earth, and many others. Marvel has British-Earth, Arab-Earth, Zombie-Earth, and many others. Not to mention the evil-Earths and authoritarian variations. With what probability are any two of these going to have the same body of laws? When Captain Carrot hauls in a murderer, is his world’s “Constitution of the Ewe-Knighted States of Animals,” say, considered equivalent to our Constitution? Are the double-meaning puns meaningful in a legal context? To what extent can these be harmonized, and by whose authority are core definitions reworded?

    – Chronology (Relative Simultaneity). As mentioned, DC has a Victorian-era Earth with Jack the Ripper running around, suggesting that it really and truly is the late nineteenth century, there. The original concept of Earth-2 was that the Justice Society was still in their prime and the world still in the 1940s. So, if a Luthor is arrested and submitted right now in the mainstream DCU and on each of these two Earths, were the crimes indeed simultaneous?

    – (Absolute) Simultaneity. Related to chronology, what happens to chronological outliers? If Luthor-0 is merely reenacting a crime committed by Luthor-2 in the ’40s, should the IdCJ take the original verdict or re-try the younger Luthor?

    – Non-Coincidental Similarity. You have two criminals using the alias “Luthor” who were captured near supposedly-similar crimes. Are the universes considered sufficiently similar, even though one has a shock of red hair and the other tried to fly away in a battlesuit? If good-guy Luthor also arrested someone named Kent at the “same” crime, what do you do with that guy? I don’t know how it’s worked at Marvel, but the classic DC tradition was to make the doppelgangers visually distinct when possible. What if evil-Superman falsely arrests good-Luthor for the crime? Whose word to you take?

    – Identity. As a result of Simultaneity and Non-coincidental similarity, either all instances of the criminal are incarnations of the same entity or they’re not. If they aren’t, then you need a very good argument that to say that the conviction of one of their trials (since the entire point is to only try one, perhaps “Platonic ideal” version of the suspect) should apply to all. If they are the same, then you have what may be the potential for Double Jeopardy claims, convicting the “same person” a large number of times for the same crime.

    – Presumption of guilt. You’ve defended this as a misinterpretation of your intent, I think, but if you bring an infinite number of Luthors to trial for a bank robbery, how does one arrange it so that all the defenses can know the details of all the parallel cases being tried so they can properly claim that they should be tried separately? If they don’t have time to review every version of the case, they’re being railroaded, after all, which would imply that we don’t care about their defense. On the other side of the aisle, other than relying on the superficial “similar simultaneous claims” idea, who actually reviews the potentially-infinite evidence to determine if the crimes are, in fact, related?

    – Context. I think Mark also makes a good point for prejudice, in that we’re assuming that all Luthors (or Joe Chills or whoevers) had the same intent and global repercussions for their crimes. The facts of the bank robbery might be identical, but if Luthor-1 was drawing Superman out to attack him, Luthor-2 was funding a coup, Luthor-0 was driving up rates on insurance policies he holds, Luthor-12 was doing it as performance at his own bank, and Luthor-XYZ was trying to support his destitute family, they’d all get convicted, but surely be handed different sentences in their own trials. Combining the trials at the IdCJ would seem to imply a one-size-fits-all sentence.

    As Josh suggests, I could see a use for such a court, but it would be in cases where the crime literally crosses dimensional boundaries. I can think of a dozen or so cases from the ’80s alone where this would have been an interesting tactic, certainly more interesting than the hero stranding the villains in “an inter-dimensional Limbo” of some sort for decades on end.

    On the other hand, given that sentences as somewhat standard (the Crime Syndicate, the Ultra-Humanite, Brain Wave, and others), perhaps the Justice Society (along with or by their counterparts in the League?) have somehow gained that very authority.

  16. Another thing I thought about. I’m no legal scholar, but I would assume that the purpose of Res Judicata would be to save the courts (finite) time. Given that we are supposing an infinite number of universes, wouldn’t that also presuppose an infinite number of courts, and thus an infinite amount of time to try these cases?

    • It’s true that the courts of each parallel universe could handle their own cases, but consolidation could save an arbitrarily large amount of time.

      In retrospect, though, I think this is more of an interesting thought experiment and less than practical even in the comic book world. The IdCJ would probably be limited to crimes that threatened the entire multiverse or otherwise crossed between parallel worlds. That’s much more practical (for some definition of practical).

  17. Hang on a minute. I would like to point out that New Earth Lex Luthor has never been indicted for any crimes, due to his knack for getting out of trouble. Furthermore, he actually used the deceased body of Alexander Luthor Junior (a version of him from another dimension) to prove that he did not commit several crimes for which he was facing charges at the time.

    Also, I would like to point out that in the Multiverse, there are evil versions of persons who are on the good side in the main universe, and vice-versa. Following your logic, I do not believe it would be fair to put on trial all of them at once, seeing that, in the end, doppelgangers from other dimensions are their own individual persons, separate from the “original.”

    Oh, and the DC Universe only has 52 separate Earths, and opposed to Marvel, which has an infinite number.

    I hope that clears things up a little. 8)

    By the way, I am a new fan of your blog, and am just getting started on reading everything! 8)

  18. Pingback: Superlaw! » Skepticality

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *