su-etc
The necessity defense
With a judge and jury of somewhat different political opinions, this
defense will win for a mob that attacks and burns an abortion clinic.
If a jury were to acquit on such grounds in the South in a case in
which (say) blacks operated the clinic, the attackers might be re-arrested on
a Federal charge of violating the civil rights of the operators of
the clinic.  Do you suppose Amy could be retried on charges of violating
the civil rights of the CIA recruiters and their potential recruits?

Most moderate leftists don't like violating people's civil rights although
they will look hard for excuses to acquit people like Carter and Hoffman.
However, hard leftists find it extremely important to establish the principle
that people who oppose them have no civil rights at all.  The Sandinistas
gradually established this principle.

a233  1323  16 Apr 87
AM-Carter-Hoffman, Bjt,0826
Shipwrecked Sailors' Defense Wins Case for Carter, Hoffman
    NORTHAMPTON, Mass. (AP) - The ''necessity defense'' that Amy Carter
and her co-defendants used to win acquittal on charges stemming from
a protest of CIA recruiting is a centuries-old legal argument rooted
in shipwrecks and cannibalism, legal experts say.
    Miss Carter, career radical Abbie Hoffman and 13 other demonstrators
were found innocent Wednesday of disorderly conduct and trespassing.
The jury apparently agreed with their argument that a need to protest
CIA mining of Nicaraguan harbors and other allegedly illegal actions
outweighed the harm in blocking school buses and occupying a
University of Massachusetts building.
    The defendants' necessity defense maintained their actions were
warranted by the circumstances and were less offensive than the
activities they were protesting.
    It was a twist on a defense used in the 18th and 19th centuries by
shipwrecked English sailors who, adrift without food, would kill a
shipmate and eat him to survive. When tried for murder, the sailors
would plead for mercy by saying the deaths of all would have been a
worse crime than the death of one.
    Massachusetts is among the few states that allow a necessity
defense, as a result of a state Supreme Court decision several years
ago, Leonard Weinglass, central defense lawyer at the trial, said
Thursday.
    ''I think faced with the abundance of evidence of illegal (CIA)
activity, the mere holding of a building for five hours or sitting in
front of a bus for 10 minutes, not only paled in comparison, but
became entirely appropriate,'' Weinglass said.
    Legal experts say a key to using a necessity defense is the claim
that the action was prompted by a ''clear and imminent danger.'' With
the sailors it was death; the CIA protesters claimed a danger more
abstract.
    ''Is it we, the defendants, who are operating outside the system, or
they (the CIA) who have strayed outside the limits of democracy and
law?'' asked Hoffman, 50, during closing arguments in Hampshire
County District Court.
    Jurors who were willing to talk said they were convinced it was the
CIA that had strayed, and the defendants were justified in their Nov.
24 demonstration.
    ''A lot of us were not aware of what the CIA was into. It was
shocking and alarming, the things we heard from witnesses,'' said
juror Ann Gaffney, 64, of Northampton.
    She said the panel was impressed by such defense witnesses as
Pentagon Papers-leaker Daniel Ellsberg, former U.S. Attorney General
Ramsey Clark and former Nicaraguan rebel leader Edgar Chamorro.
    ''The people of Northampton, a jury of six in Northampton, have
found the CIA guilty of a larger crime than trespassing and
disorderly conduct and decided we had a legitimate right to protest
that,'' said Miss Carter, daughter of former President Jimmy Carter.
    The necessity defense is among several ''justification defenses,''
which also include self-defense and insanity claims.
    It has been used in more than 100 trials, mostly civil disobedience
cases, since 1984, said Francis Boyle, professor of international and
criminal law at the University of Illinois, who wrote a book on the
subject. Other necessity defense cases have involved protests against
nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants and apartheid.
    ''What people are saying is, 'We're not the criminals, it's the
people running around in Washington who are the criminals,''' Boyle
said. ''We lose more than we win, but the remarkable thing is that we
win at all.''
    Lee Goldstein, a Cambridge lawyer who helped mold the protesters'
defense, said the defendants also had to prove their actions would
abate the danger and that they had taken all necessary legal steps
before resorting to illegal acts.
    Carter issued a statement Thursday praising the verdict and his
daughter's actions.
    ''She protested actions of the CIA in Central America which she, and
her parents, consider to have been improper and probably illegal,''
Carter said.
    Carter also said he believed it was unlikely that similar activities
would occur under William Webster, nominated to head the CIA.
    Miss Carter, 19, a sophomore at Brown University, and two other
people were accused of disorderly conduct for blocking a bus carrying
protesters. Hoffman was one of a dozen defendants charged with
trespassing for refusing to leave a school building. All faced up to
six months in jail and $500 fines.
    Meanwhile, university spokesman James Langley said Thursday the
verdict would not change th response to similar demonstrations.
    ''The issue from the university's perspective was not the
protesters' cause but the protesters' methods,'' he said.
    Langley said the school's policy on allowing CIA recruiters on
campus also has not changed, but it is under review and a report is
expected by the end of next month. He said the spy agency normally
visits campus about once every two years, so the issue was not likely
to present itself again anytime soon.
    
 
 
AP-NY-04-16-87 1623EDT
***************