3:13-cr-05357
W.D. Wash.Oct 17, 2013Background
- Defendants were arrested March 4, 2013 after crossing a Navy "blue enforcement line" into Naval Base Kitsap–Bangor during a protest aimed at symbolically disarming nuclear weapons; charged with entering a military installation for a prohibited purpose (18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 1382).
- Defendants moved (via trial brief) to permit testimony asserting defenses based on international law (arguing nuclear weapons are illegal) and necessity/justification under federal common law.
- Defendants rely on treaty obligations, the Supremacy Clause, Department of Justice guidance, Supreme Court decisions, and social-science studies to support their claimed defenses and perceptions of imminent harm.
- The government opposed; the Court evaluated whether the proffered evidence could support submission of international-law or necessity defenses to a jury.
- The Court found defendants provided no legal basis for an international-law defense and held their offer of proof insufficient as a matter of law to establish the elements of the necessity defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants may present an international‑law defense to criminal trespass on a military base | International law does not supersede the statutes criminalizing the conduct; no such defense exists | Treaties and international law render nuclear weapons illegal, so Supremacy Clause permits international‑law defense | Denied: no basis for international‑law defense under controlling authority |
| Whether defendants may assert a necessity defense | Necessity defense is inapplicable to political protest and requires strict elements not met here | Protesters reasonably believed imminent harm existed and their actions could avert it; DOJ guidance and other materials relax imminence requirement | Denied: offer of proof insufficient to meet necessity elements (choice of evils, imminence, causal nexus, lack of legal alternatives) |
| Whether recent DOJ guidance/Supreme Court decisions change imminence standard for necessity | DOJ/Supreme Court materials cited are inapposite to necessity defense standards | These materials show broader understanding of imminence and justification | Denied: cited materials do not alter Ninth Circuit law requiring traditional imminence and causation showing |
| Whether nonviolent movement studies support reasonable causal belief that protest would avert harm | Studies bolster defendants’ reasonable belief and causation claim | Studies do not establish the direct causal nexus needed for necessity in this factual context | Denied: empirical studies insufficient to establish required direct causal relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kelly, 676 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejected assertion that international law defenses supersede criminal statutes in similar protest context)
- United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1992) (necessity defense preclusion where offer of proof legally insufficient)
- United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427 (9th Cir. 1985) (standard for excluding defenses when evidence insufficient as matter of law)
- United States v. Aguilar, 883 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1989) (elements of necessity defense articulated)
- United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1980) (political protesters cannot ordinarily invoke necessity defense)