From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Cassidy

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nov 1, 1979
616 F.2d 101 (4th Cir. 1979)

Summary

holding that defendants convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1361 for defacing the Pentagon walls to protest nuclear weapons could not satisfy the "elements of lack of other adequate means or direct causal relationship"

Summary of this case from United States v. Walli

Opinion

No. 78-5151.

Argued October 5, 1979.

Decided November 1, 1979.

Sebastian K. D. Graber, Alexandria, Va. (Graber, Stetler Townsend, 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. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Before WINTER and HALL, Circuit Judges, and THOMSEN, Senior District Judge.

Senior United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.


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 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.


Summaries of

United States v. Cassidy

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nov 1, 1979
616 F.2d 101 (4th Cir. 1979)

holding that defendants convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1361 for defacing the Pentagon walls to protest nuclear weapons could not satisfy the "elements of lack of other adequate means or direct causal relationship"

Summary of this case from United States v. Walli

finding it unlikely that splashing blood on Pentagon walls would impel the United States to divest itself of nuclear weapons

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Maxwell

throwing blood and ashes on the walls and ceiling of the Pentagon as part of a political protest could not reasonably be expected to bring about a change in United States policy regarding nuclear weapons

Summary of this case from United States v. Dorrell

defacing Pentagon building in course of demonstration against nuclear weapons

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Hood

stating that even if the defendants could show the United States illegally possessed nuclear weapons under international law, their demonstration could not invoke the necessity defense because throwing blood on the walls of the pentagon does not have a direct, causal relationship with nuclear weapons possession

Summary of this case from State v. Klapstein
Case details for

United States v. Cassidy

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. ESTHER CASSIDY, JOHN SCHUCHARDT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Nov 1, 1979

Citations

616 F.2d 101 (4th Cir. 1979)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Maxwell

He cannot will a causal relationship into being simply by the fervor of his convictions (no matter how…

United States v. Kabat

Similarly, in a case decided less than a week before the start of Holladay's trial, the Ninth Circuit held…