U.S. v. Cassidy, 78-5151
| Decision Date | 01 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-5151,78-5151 |
| Citation | 616 F.2d 101 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Esther CASSIDY, John Schuchardt, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Sebastian K. D. Graber, Alexandria, Va. , for appellants.
Daniel Cisin, Third Year Law Student (William B. Cummings, U. S. Atty., Robert F. McDermott, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., J. Mark Manner and John F. Greaney, Sp. Asst. U. S. Attys., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before WINTER and HALL, Circuit Judges, and THOMSEN, * Senior District Judge.
Defendants were convicted of depredation of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361 when they threw or poured blood and ashes on the walls and ceiling of the Pentagon in the course of a demonstration against the design and possession of nuclear weapons. They appeal, contending that the district court erroneously limited their defense and that the district court prejudicially interfered with their trial. We affirm.
Defendants sought to justify the acts for which they were convicted on the ground that they constituted a necessary defense to illegal possession by the United States of nuclear weapons. In order to present this defense, they requested the court to appoint experts to testify concerning the nature of the United States' nuclear arsenal and policies and the legality of these weapons and policies under international law. The district court denied this request and subsequently refused to admit evidence on these points. We find no error in these rulings because, even if possession of nuclear weapons is illegal as defendants contend an issue that we do not address the necessity defense is inapplicable. As sought to be applied here, essential elements of the defense are that defendants must have reasonably believed that their action was necessary to avoid an imminent threatened harm, that there are no other adequate means except those which were employed to avoid the threatened harm, and that a direct causal relationship may be reasonably anticipated between the action taken and the avoidance of the harm. Even if we accept defendants' reasonable belief, we do not think that the elements of lack of other adequate means or direct causal relationship could be satisfied. See United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515 (9...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Hood
...U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 402, 66 L.Ed.2d 247 (1980) (trespass on naval base in order to protest Trident missile system); United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979) (defacing Pentagon building in course of demonstration against nuclear weapons); United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d ......
-
Com. v. Capitolo
...avoidance of the perceived harm. See Commonwealth v. Averill, 12 Mass.App. 260, 423 N.E.2d 6 (1981). See also, U.S. v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101 (4th Cir.1979); U.S. v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515 (9th Cir.1972); U.S. v. Best, 476 F.Supp. 34 Appellants' criminal trespass was a pre-planned, deliberate......
-
U.S. v. Kabat
...758 F.2d 427 (9th Cir.1985); accord United States v. Quilty, 741 F.2d 1031 (7th Cir.1984) (per curiam); United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101 (4th Cir.1979) (per curiam). Protestors, the court reasoned, cannot create "necessity" through their own impatience with the "less visible and more ......
-
People v. Gray
...belief in imminent grave injury". (United States v. Ashton, 24 F.Cas. 873 (C.C.Mass.1834) (No. 14,470)); accord United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979); State v. Heyer, Nos. 83-101221 to 83-101225, slip op. at 3 (Mich.Dist.Ct. April 9, 1984) (order permitting necessity Su......