Description: Criminal cases against climate protesters who turned pipeline valves.
-
State v. Klapstein
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 10/09/2018 Order Charges dismissed. A Minnesota trial court dismissed felony and misdemeanor charges against three climate change activists in connection with their participation in a “valve turner” pipeline protest in 2016. The Climate Defense Project, an organization assisting in the defense of the protesters, announced on October 9, 2018 that the judge dismissed the charges after the prosecution closed its case on the second day of trial. The court found that there was insufficient evidence that the defendants damaged the pipeline. The trial court had ruled in 2017 that the defendants could present a necessity defense. In 2018, the Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed the State’s appeal of the trial court’s ruling on the necessity defense, and the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to review. The dismissal of the charges rendered the presentation of the necessity defense unnecessary. Prior to the start of the trial, the court restricted the number of expert witness the defense could call to five and required that experts testify in person. 10/11/2017 Order Download Motion to present necessity defense granted. Minnesota Court Said Climate Protesters Could Present Necessity Defense at Trial. A Minnesota trial court granted four environmental activists’ motion to present a necessity defense. The defendants—two of whom acknowledged they had attempted to shut down tar sands crude oil pipelines by turning shut-off valves on the pipelines—were charged with criminal damage to property of critical public facilities, utilities, and pipelines; trespass on such facilities; and/or aiding and abetting criminal damage to property and/or trespass. The court noted that Minnesota’s standard for the necessity defense was “high” and would require the defendants to show that “the harm that would have resulted from obeying the law would have significantly exceeded the harm actually caused by breaking the law, there was no legal alternative to breaking the law, the defendant was in danger of imminent physical harm, and there was a direct causal connection between breaking the law and preventing the harm.” The court indicated that its grant of the motion to present evidence on the necessity defense was “not unlimited” and that it expected any evidence “to be focused, direct, and presented in a non-cumulative manner.” -
State v. Klapstein
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/17/2018 Order State's petitions for further review denied. Minnesota Supreme Court Declined to Review Decision Allowing Climate Protesters to Present Necessity Defense. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied the State’s petitions for further review of a trial court’s determination that four climate change protesters could present a necessity defense. The defendants participated in a “valve turner” protest in 2016 in which they entered an oil pipeline valve station to shut off the pipeline. An intermediate appellate court dismissed the State’s appeal in April 2018. The Climate Defense Project, which represents the defendants, said the trial would include expert testimony on the science of climate change and the efficacy of nonviolent civil disobedience. -
State v. Klapstein
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/23/2018 Opinion Download State's appeal dismissed. Divided Minnesota Appellate Court Dismissed State’s Appeal of Trial Court Decision Allowing “Valve Turners” to Present Necessity Defense. In a split decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed the State of Minnesota’s appeal of a trial court decision allowing defendants who participated in a “valve turner” protest to present a necessity defense. Two defendants who used bolt-cutters to enter an oil pipeline valve station and to cut a chain securing a valve device and one defendant who filmed the activities were charged with felony criminal damage to property, aiding and abetting felony criminal damage to property, gross misdemeanor trespassing, and aiding and abetting gross misdemeanor trespassing, A fourth defendant who accompanied the other three defendants and contacted the pipeline operator to notify it of their actions was charged with conspiracy to commit felony criminal damage to property and aiding and abetting felony criminal damage to property. The appellate court said the State had not made the necessary showing that the trial court’s ruling would have a critical impact on the prosecutors’ case “in the absence of other yet-unmade rulings” regarding what testimony and evidence would be permitted, what objections the State would make, and what the trial court’s rulings would be. One judge dissented, saying that permitting any evidence regarding global warming and the defendants’ belief that the federal government’s response to global warming had been ineffective “would have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” The dissenting judge also wrote that the evidence the defendants wished to present did not relate to the necessity defense as interpreted under Minnesota law because the defendants could not establish the three essential elements of the defense: that there was no legal alternative to their actions, that the harm was imminent, and that there was a direct, causal connection between their actions and the prevention of global warming. 12/04/2017 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by law professors and legal education organizations as amici curiae in support of respondents. 11/03/2017 Amicus Motion Download Application submitted by Minnesota Chamber of Commerce to participate as amicus curiae and request leave to file brief. 11/03/2017 Amicus Motion Download Application by William P. Quigley to participate as amicus curiae and request for leave to file brief. 11/03/2017 Opposition Download Memorandum filed by appellant in opposition to respondents' motion to dismiss. 11/03/2017 Order Download Motion to dismiss appeal denied. 10/30/2017 Memorandum Download Memorandum submitted in support of respondents' motion to dismiss. 10/30/2017 Motion Download Motion to dismiss filed by respondents. 10/19/2017 Statement Download Statement of the case filed by appellant.