United States v. Barker
See United States v. Ehrlichman for the facts of this case and background information on the Pentagon Papers scandal.
Facts
Barker (D) was hired to carry out the actual physical break in. Barker and two others he had recruited for the operation were told by Hunt that the break in was for the purpose of catching an individual who was leaking information to the Soviet Union.
Barker and his men had no reason to question these facts and Barker was operating on a need to know basis. Barker and his men failed to find the files they were assigned to retrieve from the psychoanalyst’s office. Barker and Martinez were indicted and at trial the judge refused to give jury instructions or allow evidence regarding their proposed theory of self defense based on the fact that they had reasonably relied on Hunt’s apparent authority. Barker was convicted and appealed.
Issue
- If an individual broke the law, but acted reasonably and in good faith on the authority of a public official, may he be acquitted?
Holding and Rule of Law
- Yes. If an individual broke the law, but acted reasonably and in good faith on the authority of a public official, he may be acquitted.
The basic policy behind the mistake of law doctrine is that every man is required to know and abide by the law. However, in certain situations there is an overriding public interest in having individuals rely on public officials whose decisions should be respected. That is what happened here. The mistake made by Barker was objectively reasonable because he had no reason to question the authority of Hunt, the man who ordered him to break into the office. Hunt had the credentials and the history to merit Barker’s reliance upon his statements. It was error for the trial court to bar this defense in the admission of evidence and instructions to the jury.
Disposition
Reversed.
Dissent (Levanthal)
This bold injection of mistake of law as a valid defense to criminal liability is being wrought in a case where defendants are charged with combining to violate civil and constitutional rights. There was a deliberate forceful entry, a burglary, into the office of a doctor who was in no way suspected of any illegality or even impropriety. This ruling stands the law upside down. Barker and Martinez were under no tension of conflicting duties as could be experienced by a soldier or citizen responding to orders. There is no compelling social interest to be served by allowing private citizens to undertake extralegal activities, acting simply on the word of a governmental official. The only issue that could possibly be before the court related to the activities of Barker and Martinez relates to an issue of clemency but can in no way exonerate these parties from their criminal acts.