United States v. Esther Cassidy, John Schuchardt, 616 F.2d 101 (4th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Esther Cassidy, John Schuchardt, 616 F.2d 101 (4th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2001 · …although both goals are eminently laudable, they do not approach the immineney threshold required to present the necessity defense. ⚠ not in text
42 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Shaquawn Demonte Warren v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Buckley, 7 Va. App. at 33 (citing United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir. 1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jose Lopez-Padilla
4th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
Even assuming that Congress contemplated the defense when it enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a), see United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 490-91 , 121 S.Ct. 1711 , 149 L.Ed.2d 722 (2001); United States v. Gore, 592 F.3d 489, 492 (4th Cir.2010), the proffered evidence was insufficient as a matter of law for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on all of the elements of the defense, see Bailey, 444 U.S. at 410-15 , 100 S.Ct. 624 ; United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979). *342 We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clark v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
There was no evidence, however, showing that in committing the offenses charged against him Clark “reasonably believed that [his] action was necessary to avoid an imminent threatened harm.” Linnehan v. State, 454 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (quoting United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Maxwell-Anthony
1st Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Montgomery, 772 F.2d 733, 736 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that defendants could not reasonably have believed that their entry into a defense plant would bring about nuclear disarmament); Dorrell, 758 F.2d at 433-34 (finding that defendant had failed to establish that breaking into an air force base and vandalizing government property could reasonably be expected to lead to the termination of the MX missile program); United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979) (per curiam) (finding it unlikely that splashing blood on Pentagon walls would impel the United State…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. State
Fla. · 1996 · confidence medium
Id. at 626 (quoting United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979)). [5] Numerous courts have considered whether the necessity defense applies to abortion trespass cases and concluded that it does not.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cram
Vt. · 1991 · confidence medium
It is not entitled to the protections of the necessity defense. “‘An essential element of the so-called justification defenses is that a direct causal relationship be reasonably anticipated to exist between the defender’s action and the avoidance of harm.’” United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 1982) (quoting United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1972)), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1147 (1983); see Dorrell, 758 F.2d at 433 (same); United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir. 1979) (same); Commonwealth v. Hood, 389 Mass. 581, 593 , 452 N.E.2d 188,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Leonard D. Singleton
6th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
In Gant , the Fifth Circuit held that in order to show a justification defense, a defendant must show: (1) that defendant was under an unlawful and “present, imminent, and impending [threat] of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury” United States v. Bailey, 585 F.2d 1087, 1110 (D.C.Cir.1978) (Wilkey, J., dissenting), rev’d, 444 U.S. 394 [ 100 S.Ct. 624 , 62 L.Ed.2d 575 ] (1980); (2) that defendant had not “recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be [forced to choose the criminal c…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brodhead
D. Mass. · 1989 · confidence medium
United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jacobs
E.D.N.C. · 1988 · confidence medium
Those elements were set forth by the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (1979): [Ejssential elements of the [necessity] 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.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Carl Kabat, United States of America v. Paul Kabat, United States of America v. Lawrence Jacob Cloud-Morgan, United States of America v. Martin John Holladay
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit as an additional rationale in Dorrell held that the defendant had "failed as a matter of law to establish that his entry into [the air force base] and his spray-painting of government property could be reasonably anticipated to lead to the termination of the MX missile program and the aversion of nuclear war." 758 F.2d at 433 ; accord May, 622 F.2d at 1009 ; United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979); United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir.1972). 39 Both the Ninth and Tenth circuits have affirmed convictions of military protestors wher…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kabat
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit as an additional rationale in Dorrell held that the defendant had “failed as a matter of law to establish that his entry into [the air force base] and his spray-painting of government property could be reasonably anticipated to lead to the termination of the MX missile program and the aversion of nuclear war.” 758 F.2d at 433 ; accord May, 622 F.2d at 1009 ; United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101,102 (4th Cir.1979); United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Montgomery
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Ahrendt v. United States, 459 U.S. 1147 , 103 S.Ct. 789 , 74 L.Ed.2d 995 (1983); United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1008 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 402 , 66 L.Ed.2d 247 (1980); United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979). 11 Defendants claim they should have been allowed to submit evidence bearing upon the defense of justification arising under international law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Montgomery
11th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Ahrendt v. United States, 459 U.S. 1147 , 103 S.Ct. 789 , 74 L.Ed.2d 995 (1983); United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1008 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 402 , 66 L.Ed.2d 247 (1980); United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ronnie Vigil
10th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Prior to trial, counsel for Vigil informed the court that one of his defenses to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon would be the “defense of necessity” or “justification” defense spelled out in United States v. Gant, 691 F.2d 1159, 1162-64 (5th Cir.1982) (footnotes omitted): To interpose a justification defense to a charge of violating 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1), defendant must show (1) that defendant was under an unlawful and ‘present, imminent, and impending [threat] of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury.’ Uni…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Linnehan v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
Id. at 102 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Hood (2×)
Mass. · 1983 · confidence medium
Phipps v. United States, 449 *593 U.S. 984 (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 515, 517-518 (9th Cir.1972) (mutilating selective service records to protest Vietnam War).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Edgar Cherry Gant
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
To interpose a justification defense to a charge of violating 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1), defendant must show (1) that defendant was under an unlawful and “present, imminent, and impending [threat] of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury,” United States v. Bailey, 585 F.2d 1087, 1110 (D.C.Cir.1978) (Wilkey, J., dissenting), rev’d, 444 U.S. 394 , 100 S.Ct. 624 , 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1979); see Model Penal Code § 3.02(1)(a) (1974); 5 (2) that defend *1163 ant had not “recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation in which it wa…
examined Cited "see" United States v. Walter Ward Dorrell, III (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: accord · confidence high
Id. at 1276; accord United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979); cf. Quilty, 741 F.2d at 1033-34 (defendants convicted of illegally entering military property were not entitled to a judgment of acquittal based on the necessity defense because of the availability of reasonable, legal, alternative ways to express their political message).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Eugene Owen Hammer
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence medium
LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law 379 (1972)); see also United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979) (necessity defense available only where, inter alia, "there are no other adequate means except those which were employed to avoid the threatened harm").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Capitolo (2×)
Pa. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
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 (D.Colo. 1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Esther CASSIDY, John Schuchardt, Appellants
78-5151.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 1, 1979.
616 F.2d 101
Sebastian K. D. Graber, Alexandria, Va. (Graber, Stetler & Townsend, Alexandria, Va., David McC. Estabrook, Gattsek, Tavenner, Rosenfeld & McConnell, Ltd., Baileys Crossroads, Va., on brief), 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.
Winter, Hall, Thomsen.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

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[*102] 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 Cir. 1972); United States v. Kroncke, 459 F.2d 697 (8 Cir. 1972); United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4 Cir. 1969). Thus, the district court did not commit error in limiting the proof.

From our study of the transcript, we conclude that the district judge did not interject himself impermissibly or prejudicially in the conduct of the trial.

AFFIRMED.