Orlando Criminal Lawyer
call for a free
consultation

Defendants Charged With Felonies Successfully Move Forward With Necessity Defense

CrimDef1

In a victory for activists, on April 23rd, an appellate court upheld a district judge’s previous ruling that those individuals being prosecuted for shutting down a tar sands pipeline could proceed with the necessity defense, or a defense indicating that their actions were necessary due to the threats posed by fossil fuel production via the construction of the pipeline.

State prosecutors had challenged the ruling, claiming that the defense would jeopardize the chance of a successful prosecution and confuse the jury. However, as a result of the appellate court’s decision, the defendants will be able to present evidence (including experts) discussing how the oil is harming the planet. The defendants are currently facing felony charges in conjunction with attempting to shut down the pipeline.

Climate Experts & Evidence of Danger

These scientific/climate change experts are expected to testify as to the growing, urgent danger that the defendants attempted to prevent by shutting down the pipeline; a danger linked to the oil’s CO2 emissions that the government has failed to meaningfully address. Many of these defendant activists feel as though they have no choice but to address the catastrophic crisis of climate change, given the failure of our political system to adequately do so.

How These Appeals Work

Appeals like these depend upon state criminal procedure law. In this particular criminal case, the state could appeal from a pretrial order if it is able to establish that a district court’s error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial unless reversed.

In order to prevail, the state has to clearly and unequivocally show that the order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order was an error. This does not require a showing that the pretrial ruling completely destroyed the state’s case, but that it significantly reduced the likelihood of a successful prosecution.

In this particular case, the state argued that the district court’s ruling would significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution because the necessity defense was inapplicable and thus evidence concerning it would confuse the jury and conflate the issue concerning culpability. However, the judge responded that the common-law defense of necessity has long been recognized in the state, and applies in emergency situations where peril leaves no alternative but the conduct which occurred, and the harm that would have resulted from complying with the law would have exceeded the harm that resulted from the defendants’ breach. 

Florida Criminal Defense Attorneys

At The Baez Law Firm, we believe in using strategic defenses in order to protect someone’s rights at every stage of a case, including the appellate level. If you are facing criminal charges as a result of being an activist, contact us today to find out more.

Resource:

mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Court%20of%20Appeals/Standard%20opinions/OPa171649-042318.pdf

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Miami

Miami Office

40 SW 13th St, Suite 901
Miami, FL 33130
Office: 305-999-5100
Fax: 305-999-5111
Orlando

Orlando Office

23 South Osceola Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
Office: 407-705-2626
Fax: 407-705-2625

Email Us

Fields Marked * Are required

Captcha Image

DISCLAIMER: Completing and submitting this form or otherwise merely contacting The Baez Law Firm or any individual at the firm will not establish an attorney/client relationship. Our firm cannot represent you until we determine that there would be no conflict of interest and that we are otherwise able to accept representation of your case. Please do not send any information or documents until a formal attorney/client relationship has been established through an interview with an attorney and you have been given authorization in the form of an engagement letter with The Baez Law Firm. Any information or documents sent via this form or otherwise prior to your receipt of an engagement letter will not be treated as confidences, secrets, or protected information of any nature. Submitting information regarding your potential case will not bar The Baez Law Firm from representing or continuing to represent a person or entity whose interest are adverse to your in condition with your case.

DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
MileMark Media - Practice Growth Solutions

© 2015 - 2018 Baez Law Firm. All rights reserved.
This law firm website is managed by MileMark Media.

Contact Form Tab Contact Form Tab