United States v. Berrigan

United States District Court · 1973 · Criminal Law

Criminal Lawwillfulnessmens reamotive versus intentjustificationnecessity-like defense rejectedFirst Amendmentsymbolic speech

Facts

The defendants were charged in three counts with willfully injuring United States property, mutilating records filed in a public office, and hindering administration of the Military Selective Service Act. They sought to tell the jury that, based on what they had read, heard, and seen, they believed the Vietnam War was immoral and illegal under international law, constitutional law, and the Nürnberg judgments. To support that position, they proposed to call experts in international law to testify that the government's acts in Vietnam were illegal. They argued that their conduct was intended to prevent criminal acts by the government and that their sincere beliefs negated the required mens rea or otherwise justified their actions.

Issue

May defendants charged with willfully damaging government property, mutilating public records, and interfering with Selective Service administration present defenses that their acts were justified by their belief that the Vietnam War was illegal, that their conduct was protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment, or that a 'Nürnberg Defense' applies?

Rule

Proof of a good, sincere, moral, religious, or political motive does not excuse violation of a valid criminal statute once the prohibited act is committed willfully. A citizen may not invoke justification to damage government property or disrupt vital governmental functions in order to prevent what he believes is governmental illegality; First Amendment protection does not shield such conduct when it collides with valid criminal statutes; and a defense premised on the government's violation of international law in conducting war is barred because that question is a political question committed to the political branches.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Philadelphia, Nora Keene entered a federal storage building and deliberately smashed government-owned computers used to process benefit claims. She admits she knew destroying the machines was against the law, but says she acted from sincere religious conviction to stop what she believed was an immoral federal program harming poor families.

If Nora is charged under a valid criminal statute requiring that she willfully damage United States property, which is the strongest analysis?

Explanation. The majority distinguished motive from intent. Once the defendant willfully commits the prohibited act, proof of a good, sincere, moral, religious, or political motive does not excuse the crime. The relevant question is not whether Nora acted for a lofty reason, but whether she intentionally did the forbidden damage.