Political defense

Last updated December 15, 2024

A political defense is a defense to a criminal charge in which the defendant asserts at trial the political motivations behind the allegedly criminal conduct. In some circumstances, the defendant might assert political motivations in order to seek acquittal. In other circumstances, defendants might not have a realistic hope of acquittal but may nevertheless use the trial as a forum for expressing political views.

A political defense is distinguished from a legal defense. A legal defense, or a "technical defense", seeks acquittal by demonstrating that the defendant's conduct did not satisfy all of the elements of the alleged crime. In a political defense, the defendant might concede that the conduct took place, but attempt to convince the jury or the public that the conduct was inherently just because of its political motivation. Some defendants might offer both a technical defense and a political defense.

Types of political defenses

The form that a political defense will take depends on its objective, audience, message, legal theory, and tactics.

Objectives

There are several reasons why a defendant might attempt a political defense.

Acquittal. Where the conduct is known to have taken place, a political defense might be the only way of obtaining an acquittal.
Public advocacy. Defendants might use the opportunity to make their political statements in a forum that they believe is likely to be heard by the public.
Personal integrity. Defendants who have committed acts of conscience such as civil disobedience might desire to have their actions judged on political terms rather than on legal terms.
Confronting the state. Where the conduct being prosecuted was part of a protest against government action, then defendants may use their trial to state their grievances directly to the state, as embodied by the trial court.
Extracting statements from opponents. Where defendants are able to subpoena governmental officers or other political opponents, or to obtain documents through pre-trial discovery, a political defense may permit them to document other parties' unjust conduct. In the Chicago Conspiracy Trial, for example, defendants subpoenaed Mayor Richard Daley in an attempt to elicit information about his role in contributing to the violence for which the defendants were blamed.

Audience

Each of these reasons implies a different audience for the political statement. Where the defendant seeks acquittal, the principal audience is the jury. Where the defendant seeks public advocacy, the principal audience is the media that are covering the trial, and through them the public. Where the defendant seeks personal integrity, the audience is himself or herself, or possibly also any collaborators in the conduct being prosecuted.

This difference may influence the choice of legal strategy: if the purpose is public advocacy, then a defendant may attempt to include political statements that would be persuasive to the public even if they would not be persuasive to a jury; the defendant might not be acquitted, but might succeed in communicating the message to the public.

Message

Defendants may have been motivated by several political purposes, and they may choose which message to communicate at trial. This choice is most important where the objective is public advocacy. In other cases, the choice may be more evident: for purposes of personal integrity and confrontation of the state, the defendant probably knows the political views that they seek to communicate; for purposes of acquittal and extracting information from the state, there may be a limited number of arguments that are likely to be successful. However, where the objective is to attract and influence public opinion, the message that is most likely to succeed is not necessarily the same as the political view that principally motivated the defendants.

Legal Theories

Rules of evidence require that any statement make in court must be relevant. Defendants must have a legal theory of innocence for which their political message is a necessary element to be proven.

There are several legal theories that allow defendants might make political statements within a criminal proceeding. They can be divided into three categories: affirmative defenses, inadequacy of mens rea, and shadow defenses.

Affirmative Defenses

An affirmative defense is a defense established by law, according to which the law endorses conduct that is otherwise illegal.

Necessity Defense. A necessity defense is a common law doctrine according to which individuals are exonerated from otherwise criminal conduct where that conduct was intended to avoid a greater harm.^[1] Some defendants of civil disobedience prosecutions, such as the Winooski 44, have successfully convinced juries that their protests were necessary in order to convince the government to modify allegedly harmful policies.
International law defense. Some courts have held that the Nuremberg Principles of international law establish a duty on individuals to prevent others from committing violations of international law. Some defendants protesting violations of international law, such as a 1980 prosecution of people protesting the U.S. military activity in Central America, have been acquitted after successfully convincing judges to allow an international law defense.^[2]
Defense of others. Some states allow people to take action that is otherwise illegal where it is necessary to protect a third person from harm.
Execution of public duty. Similar to the "defense of others" doctrine, some states have laws that require people to take measures to prevent public harms.

Each of these defenses requires that the defendant show that their actions were mitigating or preventing some greater harm or some other illegal conduct. In order to prove this defense, the defendants will be able to submit evidence and witness testimony describing their motivations or communicating other political messages.

Inadequacy of mens rea

Mens rea refers to the mental state that is required in order to be found guilty of the offense. Some statutes require that the person not only knew that they were committing the illegal act, but also that they did so with an unlawful purpose. When charged with this kind of crime, defendants will be permitted to testify in detail about the political views that motivated their action.

Shadow defense

A shadow defense is a legal defense that will enable the defendant to communicate his or her message, even though the legal defense itself is not likely to succeed. A shadow defense can be any legal theory, including an affirmative defenses. What makes a legal theory a "shadow defense" is that the defendant does not expect to be successful as a matter of law; it is, instead, a pretext for bringing information into the court that would otherwise be irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.

For example, in the trial of the Camden 28, the defendants made an entrapment defense alleging that FBI agents had convinced the group to undertake their allegedly illegal conduct. While making their entrapment defense, the defendants called witnesses to discuss the history of the use of agents provocateurs by the government and also the history of civil disobedience; they also called character witnesses such as a defendant's mother in order to discuss the defendant's peaceful tendency and also his political beliefs.

The shadow defense is related to the idea of jury nullification. Jury nullification occurs when juries decide to acquit defendants even though the defendant has violated the letter of the law. Juries might seek nullification where they agree with the political motivations of the defendant. However, the defendant must first present information about his political motivations to the jury. A shadow defense might be used to convey this information to the jury, not because the defense itself is likely to succeed but because it provides a vehicle for informing jurors about sympathetic personal characteristics of the defendants.

Other causes of jury nullification may include a belief that the law at issue is unjust or unduly harsh, a belief that the prosecution is abusing its power, or a belief that the defendant is not receiving fair treatment on account of his race, color, creed, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

Tactics

Defendants may use other tactics to communicate their message.

Pro se representation. Defendants who choose to represent themselves are typically allowed greater latitude than lawyers are, and may be able to directly communicate their political message during opening statements, closing statements, or witness examination.
Defendant conduct. Defendants might make non-verbal statements by virtue of their courtroom conduct. During the Chicago conspiracy trial, for example, defendants wore judges' robes and police uniforms to court in order to communicate their irreverence for orthodox structures of government power.
Conduct outside the courtroom. The defendants or their supporters may conduct advocacy outside of the courtroom, through media or other events. This might not change the course of the trial itself, but it uses the event of the trial as an opportunity for political advocacy.

Related Research Articles

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others.

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

Civil disobedience is the active, and professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government. By some definitions, civil disobedience has to be nonviolent to be called "civil". Hence, civil disobedience is sometimes equated with peaceful protests or nonviolent resistance. Henry David Thoreau's essay Resistance to Civil Government, published posthumously as Civil Disobedience, popularized the term in the US, although the concept itself has been practiced longer before.

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Most trial juries are "petit juries", and usually consist of twelve people. A larger jury known as a grand jury has been used to investigate potential crimes and render indictments against suspects.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.
In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion is the moving party or movant. The party opposing the motion is the nonmoving party or nonmovant.

Not proven is a verdict available to a court of law in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts, one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal.

The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a United States national jury education organization, incorporated in the state of Montana as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. It works to educate citizens on their authority when they serve as jurors. FIJA's stated aims are to educate the public, provide commentary on current jury-related cases, and assist defendants with jury authority strategies — including the right to veto bad laws and the misapplication of laws by refusing to convict the defendant. The organization was formed in 1989 by Larry Dodge, a Montana businessman, and his friend Don Doig. It was formed following discussions about forming such a group at the National Libertarian Party convention in Philadelphia in 1989.

In the law of evidence in the United States, public policy doctrines for the exclusion of relevant evidence encompass several types of evidence that would be relevant to prove facts at issue in a legal proceeding, but which are nonetheless excluded because of public policy concerns. There are five major areas of exclusion that arise out of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE"): subsequent remedial measures, ownership of liability insurance, offers to plead guilty to a crime, offers to settle a claim, and offers to pay medical expenses. Many states have modified versions of the FRE under their own state evidence codes which widen or narrow the public policy exclusions in state courts.

A system for trial by jury was first introduced in 1923 under Prime Minister Katō Tomosaburō's administration. Although the system generated relatively high acquittal rates, it was rarely used, in part because it required defendants to give up their rights to appeal the factual determinations made. The system lapsed by the end of World War II. In 2009, as a part of a larger judicial reform project, laws came into force to introduce citizen participation in certain criminal trials by introducing lay judges. Lay judges comprise the majority of the judicial panel. They do not form a jury separate from the judges, as in a common law system, but participate in the trial as inquisitorial judges next to professional judges in accordance with the civil law legal tradition – similar to the French cour d'assises – who actively analyze and investigate evidence presented by the defense and prosecution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Camden 28</span> Anti-Vietnam War activists who raided a draft office in New Jersey

The Camden 28 were a group of leftist, Catholic, anti-Vietnam War activists who in 1971 planned and executed a raid on a draft board in Camden, New Jersey, United States. The raid resulted in a high-profile criminal trial of the activists that was seen by many as a referendum on the Vietnam War and as an example of jury nullification.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

A shadow defense is a legal defense that cannot be sustained on its own merits but opens the door to introducing evidence that will assist in seeking jury nullification, and gives the jury an excuse to acquit. A "shadow defense" also may refer to a tactic by defending counsel that is not expected to be successful as a matter of law; it is, instead, a pretext for bringing information into the court that would otherwise be irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.

A political trial is a criminal trial with political implications. When the trial is carried out without the minimum guarantees of the rule of law, the political trial is the expression of a totalitarian or authoritarian system, where the administration of justice as a whole is political.

A technical defense is one used by a defendant to seek acquittal based on the technicalities of the law. It is in contrast to a political defense which seeks to use political arguments to persuade a jury to nullify. Sometimes the desire to convince a jury on political and moral grounds is so strong that political defendants will reject a potent technical defense.

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court decision that clarified both the scope of the protection against double jeopardy provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the limits of an appellate court's discretion to fashion a remedy under section 2106 of Title 28 to the United States Code. It established the constitutional rule that where an appellate court reverses a criminal conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Double Jeopardy Clause shields the defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense. Notwithstanding the power that appellate courts have under section 2106 to "remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances," a court that reverses a conviction for insufficiency of the evidence may not allow the lower court a choice on remand between acquitting the defendant and ordering a new trial. The "only 'just' remedy" in this situation, the Court held, is to order an acquittal.

References

↑ Steven M. Bauer and Peter J. Eckerstrom (May 1987). "The State Made Me Do It: The Applicability of the Necessity Defense to Civil Disobedience". Stanford Law Review . 39 (5): 1173–1200. doi:10.2307/1228792. JSTOR 1228792.
↑ "Human Rights and Peace Law Docket".

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Steven M. Bauer and Peter J. Eckerstrom (May 1987). "The State Made Me Do It: The Applicability of the Necessity Defense to Civil Disobedience". Stanford Law Review . 39 (5): 1173–1200. doi:10.2307/1228792. JSTOR 1228792.

[2] "Human Rights and Peace Law Docket".

[1]

[2]