Tim DeChristopher on All In With Chris Hayes

[limpyhobbler]

[chelsea0011]

1. This guy went to jail over this. Really. He went to jail...for two years. Unbelievable.

[limpyhobbler]

2. Yeah. And at his trial he was not allowed to really defend himself.

He was not allowed to present evidence that the auction itself was illegal since the environmental impact had not been studied.

He was not allowed to let the jury know that after the auction he raised money for a payment on the leases. Or to inform the jury of his motives.

DeChristopher and his attorneys were also forbidden to inform the jury that the lease auction was deemed unlawful, that DeChristopher had raised sufficient funds for an initial payment to the BLM (which the BLM refused to accept), or that DeChristopher's motives were grounded in moral convictions related to climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_DeChristopher

[cprise]

3. 'not allowed to present evidence that the auction itself was illegal'

I can understand the court barring evidence that the government decided after the auction that it was illegal.

But barring any evidence that DeChristopher used to decide the illegality of the auction for himself... that doesn't seem possible. Since when can a court bar discussion of the motive?

[limpyhobbler]

4. IANALB,

I think judges are allowed to ban that kind of evidence from being presented if they decide it is not relevant.

more here...

The power used to enact this silencing is legal: The prosecution argued and the judge agreed that Tim did not meet the elements of the Necessity Defense. they are:

1. The defendant was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil;
2. The defendant acted to prevent imminent harm;
3. There was a causal relationship between DeChristopher’s conduct and harms to be averted; and
4. The defendant had no legal alternatives to violating the law.

The way it works in England, and should work here, is that the jury decides if the defendant has satisfied all of these elements. Here, the prosecution asked the judge to decide before hand if a “reasonable juror” would (read:should) believe that the facts of Tim’s case satisfy these elements. The prosecution in its Motion in Limine argued that to let the jury hear this defense would cause needless delay and confusion, and could even result in the jury finding Tim not guilty by applying the Necessity Defense wrongly, without the elements being really met. Even though the jury is supposed to determine the facts while the judge determines the law, the prosecution asked the judge to decide, as a matter of law, that it would be impossible for a reasonable jury to find Tim not guilty by reason of Necessity.

According to Judge Benson, Tim didn’t meet any of the elements. Tim’s “monkey-wrenching” the auction was not a lesser evil than what the BLM was doing. The harm (climate change) was not imminent. Tim’s act could not cause the harm to be averted, even assuming there was any harm. And finally, Tim could have done something legal to prevent the alleged harm, like write a letter to his congressperson or click a link on the internet.

The result of this pre-trail ruling was that Tim was gagged. He could not present his defense. Even if he had tried to mention anything like “I am fighting against climate change” or “the BLM auction was illegal,” the judge would have stopped him in his tracks. The judge could find him and his lawyers in contempt, or even declare a mis-trial and seat another jury, constricted in the same way. All Tim and his defense counsel could do, or can do, is to appeal Judge Benson’s ruling on the Necessity Defense to a higher court.

http://www.peacefuluprising.org/the-law-of-protest-a-series-on-u-s-v-dechristopher-20110614