Hounded, Cowed, & Badgered

Ninth Circuit: Unfair trial for environmental activist

Yesterday the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction of Briana Waters, an environmental activist convicted of burning down a University of Washington agricultural building in 2001. I don't have any experience with federal prosecutors, but the overreaching by the AUSA in the case seems to reflect a "Green Scare" mentality. They just go cuckoo for AR and environmental activists, violent or peaceful!

As laid out in the decision (pdf here), the district judge's rulings forced Waters to defend her case with one hand tied behind her back. The reviewing court found multiple errors occurred (hello, public trial fans!) which resulted in an unfair trial.  Most notably, the judge allowed in a folder of anarchist literature but prevented Waters from showing a film of hers about a peaceful demonstration against clear-cutting. The film would support Waters's claim that she was committed to non-violence. The Ninth Circuit held that

[t]hese rulings, in combination, assured that the jury would be provided with a one-sided picture of Waters. The jury saw her connected to violent anarchist propaganda that it may have had a visceral reaction to, while it was prevented from viewing evidence that would paint a contrasting picture of Waters as a person.

The prosecutor is quoted as saying it was a "fair fight."

Back!

Well, it's been a while. Loyal readers, please accept my apologies for the long silence. I'm giving this blog another go at it. I resolve in the new year to resume posting, at least once a week, and to make my posts a little more readable.

What developments have I missed? The ABA Journal has a nice rundown of recent animal law cases and laws including, as a timely tie-in, BP's agreement, following a lawsuit, to develop protocols for burning oil, in order to avoid harming sea turtles. Also mentioned are SCOTUS's invalidation of an anti-cruelty law in United States v. Stevens, a law in Massachusetts (text here) that makes devocalization of cats and dogs more difficult, and the Ninth Circuit's upholding of a California law banning meat from downed animals in National Meat Association vs. Brown. I'd also add the controversy over Cass Sunstein's scholarship on standing for animal advocates.

This article gets extra credit for generally avoiding the cardinal sins of animal law reportage: using puns that minimizing animal suffering or the efforts of animal advocates, overstating the level of change achieved, and accepting industry lines on abuse. The lack of callous puns is a welcome contrast to the National Meat Association decision, which refers to both "hogwash" and "horse sense." To quote Shaun Martin: "knee-slapper[s], to be sure." The decision, however, does have an interesting section on how states can regulate the slaughter of animals, while avoiding federal preemption. It holds "states are free to decide which animals may be turned into meat."

There are a couple of missteps--using "animal welfare" and "animal rights" interchangeably, and the implication that Animal Liberation Front used lawsuits as a tactic--but overall, a fine description of the state of animal law in the U.S.