Tim DeChristopher, the environmental activist who bid on oil and gas leases to prevent development of sensitive tracts near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, was convicted yesterday on both counts (false statements and impeding a federal auction). This is not surprising as he had admitted to the acts and he was barred from discussing his motives. The New York Times' reporter Kirk Johnson asked "Do Motives Matter?" in a blog post about the verdict. Legally, in this case, the answer is no. Without the ability to argue necessity any discussion of his motives, technically speaking, would be irrelevant to proving the charges; the government asked the jury "did he do it?" and reminded them that it didn't matter why. (Aside: motive is almost always irrelevant in criminal prosecutions (though it can be relevant in sentencing), a misconception that is perpetuated by pop culture portrayals of trial. Cops rely on motive in investigations, but in the courtroom it is rarely an element that must be proved).
Mr. Johnson is asking the wrong question. Rather, he should be asking "why was this case brought?" Prosecutorial discretion is the principle that the executive has the right to determine which cases are tried, which suspects tried, and what the priorities of enforcement will be. First, the Obama administration pulled the tracts in question from development, negating the auctions, so there was no harm to the government. Second, his motives were honorable. This is the case of a non-violent student engaging in civil disobedience. That he would be prosecuted and now faces up to 10 years in prison for this is unconscionable, especially from an administration that, despite its abysmal record in many areas, actually has a relatively good (though far from exemplary) record on environmental issues. However, what it comes down to is corporate power and money and, as DeChristopher said after his conviction, "I can't point to many examples where they've sided with future generations over corporate interests." It's just another in a long list of examples of Obama siding with the rich and powerful instead of supporting meaningful systemic reform.
At least he was convicted of dealing only with the Bureau of Livestock and Mining and not the historically (even more) corrupt Minerals Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement). That would have been intolerable. And perhaps he will raise the profile of the continued problems of widespread oil and gas leasing, climate change, and environmental degradation (especially near sensitive lands) and serve as a martyr. The first hero in a long fight.
Showing posts with label Heroes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heroes. Show all posts
Friday, March 4, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
DeChristopher Trial
Tim DeChristopher's trial is being conducted this week. DeChristopher is the environmental activist who prevented oil and gas drilling on lands near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks by bidding on and winning $1.8 million dollars worth of leases on BLM land in 2008. Unfortunately he has been barred by Judge Dee Benson from discussing his motives during his trial. While this is not particularly surprising, it makes it highly likely that he will be convicted. The statutes under which he is being charged require a "knowing" or "intentional" standard and the court rejected his "necessity defense." In other words, it said that even if all the evidence he planned to present in court were believed, it would not meet the requirements to legally justify his actions as preventing a greater harm. In its order barring discussion of necessity, the court held that he could not establish that he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils, that he couldn't show enough of a connection between the leases and the threat of climate change, and that he had other legal alternatives.
At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.
His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.
On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.
At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.
His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.
On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)