Summary
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of members of the Pershing Plowshares group for depredation of United States Army property and conspiracy. The court rejected challenges concerning voir dire, juror disqualification, and the exclusion of evidence supporting necessity and international-law defenses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court conducted sufficiently thorough voir dire to determine whether prospective jurors could remain impartial despite pretrial publicity.
- Whether jurors Young and Satterfield should have been excused for cause.
- Whether the defendants proffered sufficient evidence to submit a necessity defense to the jury.
- Whether the defendants were entitled to present evidence supporting an affirmative defense based on international law.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting collective and individual questioning about pretrial publicity rather than allowing defendants to question jurors individually.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motions to exclude jurors Satterfield and Young for cause.
- The defendants were not entitled to present a necessity defense because their proffer did not establish the absence of reasonable legal alternatives.
- The defendants were not entitled to present evidence supporting an international-law defense to their domestic criminal charges.
Key quotations
“It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” (at 735)
“Defendants are not in a good position to complain of the effect of pretrial publicity that they actively sought and cultivated.” (at 736)
“People are not legally justified in committing crimes simply because their message goes unheeded.” (at 737)
“Defendants in the case before us stand this doctrine on its head in arguing that a person charged with no duty or responsibility by domestic law may voluntarily violate a criminal law and claim that violation was required to avoid liability under international law.” (at 738)
Factual background
On Easter Sunday in 1984, eight members of the Pershing Plowshares group entered the Martin-Marietta Aerospace Corporation defense plant in Orlando after cutting through a surrounding fence. They damaged United States Army missile launchers and components by hammering them and pouring blood on them, displayed banners, distributed anti-nuclear materials, and remained singing and praying until arrested. The damage was estimated at $23,266, and the defendants had themselves publicized the incident through media appearances and released photographs.
Procedural history
After indictment, defendants pleaded not guilty and waived counsel while accepting attorneys in an advisory capacity. Following a six-day jury trial, they were convicted and sentenced by the district court. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.