The Court ruled on Apr 11, 2014
Summary: The denial of Fitzpatrick’s Motion to Dismiss based on his theory that the grand jury foreman was illegally appointed was affirmed as Fitzpatrick did not supply the appellate court with a transcript of the hearings held by the trial court on this matter. The situation facing Fitzpatrick was not such that his stealing the documents was a “necessity”.
As to Fitzpatrick’s necessity defense:
Appellant argued in the trial court that his taking of the documents was a necessity because he was told by an FBI agent to get tangible evidence and because he thought the documents would be destroyed. However, as set out above, the defense of necessity has been used in situations where there is a lesser of two evils situation created by some sort of natural force or condition. That situation was clearly not present in the facts at hand.
Examples given by the court of a true situation where a necessity defense could be raiser are
a ship violating an embargo law to avoid a storm and a pharmacist providing medication without a prescription to alleviate someone’s suffering during an emergency.
Fitzpatrick loses. On to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Sharon Rondeau may have missed the April 11 ruling. Funny…