United States v. Dougherty

473 F.2d 1113 (1972)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds broke into the locked fourth floor Dow Chemical offices, threw papers and documents about the office and into the street below, vandalized office furniture and equipment, and defaced the premises by spilling a blood-like substance. Members of the news media had been summoned to the scene by Ds witnessed the destruction while recording it photographically. There was no doubt of Ds' guilt. The court appointed separate counsel for each defendant. All except one elected interim joint representation by Philip Hirschkop, Addison Bowman and Caroline Nickerson. Begin was represented by Edward Bennett Williams. All attorneys were court-appointed. Some of the defendants requested a pro se defense. The court denied Ds' motions. The prosecution's case was completed in a day and a half. The defendants in their opening statements made references to the Vietnam War. Things got out of control with the defendants and their supporters. Fights broke out between Marshalls, the defendants, and spectators in the courtroom. During these events, the jury was ushered from the courtroom. The Court ordered the courtroom cleared and took a recess. A number of spectators refused to leave the courtroom and had to be ejected forcibly. The Court returned after the courtroom had been cleared and the press, counsel and the defendants had been readmitted. The jury was recalled, admonished to disregard what it had seen, and sent home. Eventually, the case was finished, and the judge instructed the jury on the three counts of each indictment as well as on the lesser-included offense of unlawful entry under the burglary count. He refused to instruct the jury that it could disregard the law as he gave it to them, and refused to instruct the jury that 'moral compulsion' or 'choice of the lesser evil' constituted a legal defense. Ds were convicted and appealed: (1) The trial judge erred in denying defendants' timely motions to dispense with counsel and represent themselves. (2) The judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury of its right to acquit appellants without regard to the law and the evidence and refused to permit appellants to argue that issue to the jury. (3) The instructions actually given by the court coerced the jury into delivering a verdict of guilty.