Necessity

Necessity As a Legal Defense

Necessity as a Legal Defense in Federal Court

Necessity, often referred to as the “choice of evils” defense, is a legal principle used in both state and federal courts. It allows a defendant to argue that they committed a criminal act in order to prevent a greater harm. In other words, the defendant claims that their illegal conduct was justified because it was necessary to avoid a more significant and imminent danger. While this defense is recognized in federal law, it is narrowly applied and subjected to stringent scrutiny.

Elements of the Necessity Defense

The federal courts have established specific criteria that a defendant must meet to successfully invoke necessity as a defense. These elements include:

1. Imminent Harm: The defendant must demonstrate that they were faced with an immediate threat of harm. The danger must not be speculative or remote but must present an immediate and significant risk. This element requires the harm to be truly imminent, as courts do not permit the necessity defense when there is time to seek lawful alternatives or intervention from authorities.
2. No Reasonable Legal Alternatives: The defendant must show that there were no reasonable legal alternatives to the illegal conduct. The defendant must have reasonably believed that the criminal act was the only way to prevent the harm. If the defendant could have avoided the harm by lawful means, the necessity defense will likely fail.
3. Proportionality: The harm that the defendant sought to avoid must be greater than the harm caused by the illegal act. This proportionality requirement ensures that the defense is only available when the defendant’s conduct was, on balance, the lesser of two evils. If the harm caused by the defendant’s actions outweighs the harm they sought to avoid, the defense will be unsuccessful.
4. Causation: There must be a direct causal link between the defendant’s illegal act and the prevention of the threatened harm. In other words, the defendant’s actions must have been effective in avoiding the danger. Speculative or indirect connections between the illegal conduct and the avoidance of harm are insufficient.
5. Lack of Fault: The necessity defense cannot be used if the defendant was at fault in creating the situation that led to the need to act unlawfully. This ensures that individuals cannot create dangerous situations and then claim necessity as a defense when they break the law to resolve the danger.

Application in Federal Courts

In federal courts, the necessity defense is often invoked but rarely successful. Federal judges are generally reluctant to permit this defense because it can conflict with the principle of upholding the law and maintaining order. The courts scrutinize necessity claims carefully to prevent defendants from using it as an excuse for illegal conduct when other, lawful options were available.

The necessity defense is most commonly raised in cases involving civil disobedience, environmental protests, and acts of political activism. For example, defendants who engage in protests that involve trespassing or property damage may attempt to argue necessity by claiming that their actions were required to prevent environmental harm or other societal dangers. However, federal courts have consistently held that political or philosophical motives are not sufficient to justify breaking the law under the necessity defense.

The necessity defense in federal cases requires proof the defendant’s actions were compelled by an imminent threat, lacked legal alternatives, and prevented greater harm. Criminal defense lawyer Nate Crowley crafts compelling arguments, navigates complex legal standards, and counters prosecution claims, ensuring a dismissal or fair trial.

Necessity as a Legal Defense in California

In California, the necessity defense is similarly recognized, but it has been codified and applied more broadly than in federal courts. Under California law, a defendant can claim the necessity defense to avoid liability for committing what would otherwise be a criminal act, provided specific conditions are met.

Like federal law, the necessity defense in California is grounded in the concept that sometimes a person may be forced to choose between two evils, and the law allows the person to choose the lesser evil when there is no other legal option.

Application of the Necessity Defense in California

California courts have shown a greater willingness to entertain the necessity defense compared to federal courts, especially in cases involving civil disobedience and minor criminal offenses. For instance, individuals protesting environmental degradation, nuclear energy, or government policies have successfully raised the necessity defense when their unlawful actions, such as trespassing or blocking roadways, were aimed at preventing a perceived greater societal harm.

A well-known case illustrating this is People v. Pepper (1996), where activists trespassing at a military facility argued necessity to protest the harm posed by nuclear weapons. The California court allowed the necessity defense to be presented to the jury, though it ultimately failed due to other factors. This case, along with others, highlights the more flexible approach California courts take when considering necessity in contexts involving broader social or political concerns.

However, like federal courts, California courts still apply strict scrutiny to necessity claims. The defense cannot be used as a blanket justification for illegal conduct, and it is frequently rejected when the defendant had alternative lawful options. Federal courts generally approach the necessity defense with caution, given the potential for abuse and the need to maintain the rule of law. As such, federal criminal defense lawyer Nate Crowley may be able to use necessity as a successful defense in federal criminal cases.

Did You Break The Law Out of Necessity? Contact Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer Nate Crowley for Help.

Fill out our contact form on the Home Page https://www.natecrowleylaw.com/
Phone (619) 202-8188 OR email admin@crowleycrowleylaw.com