At page 102 Analyzing necessity defense for illegal possession of nuclear weapons19 citing casesdefacing Pentagon building in course of demonstration against nuclear weapons
- Shaquawn Demonte Warren v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 883 S.E.2d 709 (Va. Ct. App. 2023).publishedBuckley, 7 Va. App. at 33 (citing United States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir. 1979)).
- United States v. Jose Lopez-Padilla, 543 F. App'x 341 (4th Cir. 2013).unpublishedEven 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…
- Clark v. State, 876 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).publishedThere 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 DC…
- United States v. Maxwell-Anthony, 254 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2001).publishedE.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 (fin…
- Hill v. State, 688 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1996).publishedId. 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.
- State v. Cram, 600 A.2d 733 (Vt. 1991).publishedIt 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 av…
- United States v. Leonard D. Singleton, 902 F.2d 471 (6th Cir. 1990).publishedIn 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 ap…
- United States v. Brodhead, 714 F. Supp. 593 (D. Mass. 1989).publishedUnited States v. Cassidy, 616 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1979).
- United States v. Jacobs, 704 F. Supp. 629 (E.D.N.C. 1988).publishedThose 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…
- United States v. Carl Kabat, United States of Am. v. Paul Kabat, United States of Am. v. Lawrence Jacob Cloud-Morgan, United States of Am. v. Martin John Holladay, 797 F.2d 580 (8th Cir. 1986).publishedSimilarly, 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 reasonab…
Show 8 more citing cases
- United States v. Kabat, 797 F.2d 580 (8th Cir. 1986).publishedSimilarly, 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 reasonab…
- United States v. Montgomery, 772 F.2d 733 (11th Cir. 1985).published 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 1…
- United States v. Ronnie Vigil, 743 F.2d 751 (10th Cir. 1984).publishedPrior 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…
- Linnehan v. State, 454 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).publishedId. at 102 (emphasis added).
- Commonwealth v. Hood, 452 N.E.2d 188 (Mass. 1983).published (defacing Pentagon building in course of demonstration against nuclear weapons)
- United States v. Edgar Cherry Gant, 691 F.2d 1159 (5th Cir. 1982).publishedTo 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-gro…
- United States v. Walter Ward Dorrell, III, 758 F.2d 427 (9th Cir. 1985).published It is obviously not a defense to charges arising from a typical protest. 18 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 militar…
- United States v. Eugene Owen Hammer, 43 F.3d 1469 (4th Cir. 1994).unpublished(necessity defense available only where, inter alia, "there are no other adequate means except those which were employed to avoid the threatened harm)
Other citing cases
- Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 471 A.2d 462 (Pa. 1984).published
v.
Esther CASSIDY, John Schuchardt, Appellants
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.