Is Injustice Relevant? Narrative and Blameworthiness in Protester Trials
Jessica L. West
Vermont Law School
April 9, 2013
Temple Law Review, Forthcoming
Vermont Law School Research Paper No. 11-13
This Article examines application of the doctrine of relevance to exclude evidence of the motivations underlying the actions of civilly disobedient criminal defendants. While not constitutionally protected, civil disobedience plays an important role in the political, social and legal history of the United States. Though acts of civil disobedience involve violations of law, actions of protest differ from actions of non-protest crime in a number of important respects. Civilly disobedient protesters undertake their action openly, motivated by the desire to call public attention to an injustice. Their motivation is distinct from that of non-protester criminal defendants who seek to promote individual goals. Despite the importance of protester motivation in distinguishing the civilly disobedient defendant, courts routinely exclude evidence of protester motivations as not relevant in criminal proceedings. Applied broadly in many contexts, the doctrine of relevance is applied narrowly in the context of motivations of protesters. The constrained application utilized in protester trials overlooks evolving understandings of evidentiary relevance. The most important of these evolving concepts are narrative relevance and blameworthiness. Evidence of underlying motivation provides an essential piece of a cohesive narrative explaining a protester’s actions and intentions. The evidence also permits a fact finder to conduct the evaluation of blameworthiness required for a determination of criminal culpability. Ultimately, the article concludes that courts should recognize the admissibility of protester motivation within criminal trials of civilly disobedient protesters.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 51
Keywords: Evidence, Relevance, Rule 401, Trails, Protest, Civil Disobedience, Protester Motivation
Date posted: April 10, 2013 ; Last revised: May 4, 2015
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.344 seconds