Honorable Elzie Sanders, Judge - Amicus Curia Brief for <I>Faretta</I> hearing 5/16/95 of Paul Jennings Hill, Case Number 94-3510-J.

It is my belief that Paul J. Hill is not legally qualified to serve as his own attorney in regard to his automatic appeal on the death penalty. In fact, based upon the following, he was not qualified to serve as his own counsel at either his FACE or murder trials.

Paul Hill, acting on his own behalf, was presented the following four criteria in order to be allowed to use the "Necessity Defense" at both his FACE trial and at his murder trial. He failed to make reply at either trial when there were simple answers that could have been given. He was even given possible arguments that could be used by Judge Roger Vinson and was unable to appropriately respond.

"Requirements for Necessity Defense" -- Justifiable injury or killing of abortionists, accomplices and those within zone of activity; damage or destruction of procured abortion related and other adjacent properties; homes, automobiles, etc. of abortionists, accomplices, etc. -- (Extracted from article by Ginny Graybiel, Pensacola News Journal, dated September 29, 1994)

U. S. District Judge Roger Vinson listed the following four elements that the law would require to allow the use of necessity defense arguments in court. Judge Vinson also suggested possible arguments, in quotations, that could be used in regard to each point.

1. . . A defendant was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil.
"The test for necessity requires that the defendant faced with a choice of evils choose the lesser evil; it does not require that the evil perceived must be illegal under the law."

2. . . A defendant reasonably anticipated a cause-and-effect relationship between his conduct and the harm avoided.
"It is possible to hold a reasonable belief that injuring or interfering with abortion providers will prevent at least one or some abortions from occurring. The fact that the number of medical doctors willing to perform abortions continues to decline makes the causal connection even stronger."

3. . . A defendant acted to prevent imminent harm.
"To many persons opposed to an abortion, an abortion represents the intentional taking of a human life and preventing an abortion is thus seen by them as equivalent to preventing a murder."

4. . . There were no legal alternatives to violating the law.
Vinson referred to an appellate court's decision that abortion protesters have legal alternatives, such as marching or distributing literature. "But a lurking question may remain as to whether such legal alternatives are viable alternatives to the perceived imminent harm."
"... As a general proposition, evidence that a defendant exhausted all available legal alternatives, and that such alternatives as a class had been futile over a long period, might be sufficient to allow a defendant to present his necessity defense to a jury."

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The above four elements were also stated in at least approximately the same form at a preliminary hearing to the murder trial of Paul Jennings Hill in the Escambia County Circuit Court presided over by Judge Frank L. Bell. The prosecuting attorney presented only weak arguments against the use of the necessity defense for the State of Florida. Paul Hill, acting as his own counsel, obviously did not understand the legal importance of responding to these conditions for being allowed to use the necessity defense.

Commentary:

The following responses could have been made to the above mentioned four elements required for being allowed to present the necessity defense before a jury of his peers.

1. . . Clearly the lives of a known practicing murderer (abortionist, i.e., morally a guilty person) and accomplices have no value to God or man when placed in comparison to the multiple innocent lives he is expected to terminate (murder) in the near future. In view of the command of God to Noah (GN 9:6-7) the taking of the life of an abortionist, etc. is clearly not to be seen as an evil, but as a good. Laws made by civil governments in opposition to sound reasoning and God's will, i.e., legal but immoral slavery of 19th century America; the holocaust perpetrated on 16 million people by the lawful German government before and during the Second World War; bombing of Pearl Harbor by the legal Japanese government; etc., are not to be allowed as an excuse for mass murder or other moral and social evils. It should be understood that the violence which takes place in the womb is the worst possible type of violence and has the greatest long term effect upon society as a whole.

Anarchy should be understood as the destruction of a just government or the opposition to sound law, i.e., just law. Anarchy should not be seen to be a part of the actions of God fearing people who deem it important to protect innocent human beings at all stages of life. Further, the defense of innocent human beings cannot be deemed as vengeance when there is no personal relationship involved when protecting ones innocent neighbors in the womb. Personal anger is also absent in this real, but in a sense abstract, protection of unseen persons.

2. . . The justifiable cause for an abortionists death is the prevention of numerous deaths he is intending to bring about. The effect of saving countless innocent human lives far outweighs the loss of numerous guilty lives and their protectors, particularly when considered in relationship to eternal values.

Social impact studies, only now beginning to be made available from competent researchers, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc., have not yet had a real influence upon society and law. These studies will eventually prove the long term harm of abortion upon the mother, family, and society. The total monetary cost and more importantly the degrading of the value of human life is only beginning to be understood through such studies.

Because of our interwoven society in regard to those opposed to and in favor of procured abortion there is almost no possibility of insurrection or civil war ever escalating to the point where over 40 million born American citizens would be killed. Before the time such a war, if ever commenced, killed this great a number of people there would be no abortionists left for it to remain a public issue. Surgically induced abortions would not be available by reason of attrition of those willing to perform abortions or produce the chemical or mechanical means to induce abortion. Note: If chemically and mechanically induced abortions were to be added to the number of surgical abortions being done, the number would be increased by a factor of ten according to an organization called Pharmacists For Life.

3. . . Both sound religious teachings and natural law/science -- which cannot disagree as they have the same source, God -- agree that all of the elements of full humanity are present at the moment of conception. Scientifically this can be determined from the ability to implant a fertilized ovum in a surrogate mother without transferring any of the genetic structure, etc. of the surrogate mother to the child. To terminate an abortionist (guilty person) or an accomplice prevents imminent harm to one or more innocent human beings (preborn babies).

4. . . Because federal law immorally allows procured abortion and even mandates protection of criminal abortionists and facilities, there are no legal alternatives immediately available to save the lives of innocent human beings about to be imminently cruelly destroyed. After over twenty years of trying to use legal methods, to stop procured abortion (with the destruction of over thirty million innocent human beings), it can be said, even from a myopic point of view, that civil procedures and other alternatives have proven to be of no avail. Truly such attempts should be seen as foolish considering that each day in this country alone over four thousand innocent human babies are being slaughtered for reasons of selfishness and/or personal gain.

The "Catechism of the Catholic Church", with emphasis added, clearly states the full value of human life from the moment of conception via the following excerpts:

2270 . . Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2323 . . Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended... like every other human being.
2268 . . ... The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
2269 . . ... The moral law prohibits ... refusing assistance to a person in danger.
2258 . . "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right to destroy an innocent human being."
2260 . . For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (Gen 9:5-6)
2261 . . ... "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous." The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
2271 . . Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an ends or as a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2273 . . ... "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the foundations of a state based on law are undermined. ... As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."
1902 . . ...A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2.)
1903 . . Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."

Bible quotes Concerning the Unborn:
Psalms 127:3 . . Children too are a gift from the LORD, the fruit of the womb, a reward.
Proverbs 6:16-17 . . There are six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him;

[17] Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood;
Luke 1:15 . . for he will be great in the sight of (the) Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother's womb,
Luke 1:41-44 . . When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, [42] cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. [43] And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44] For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
Prov. 24:11-12 . . Rescue those who are being dragged to death,
and from those tottering to execution withdraw not.
[12] If you say, "I know not this man!"
does not he who tests hearts perceive it?
He who guards your life knows it,
and he will repay each one according to his deeds.

Facts:
1. . . By common understanding
2. . . By widespread religious belief
3. . . By medical scientific evidence
it is recognized that from the moment of conception a new human being has come into existence. To argue otherwise is to go against common sense. The fact that many do not accept this definition of human origin is irrelevant as the value of human personhood cannot be subjected to limited human dissent.

Paul Hill by not examining prospective jurors and by not eliminating unqualified or unjust peers has demonstrated his lack of qualification to act as his own attorney. Jury selection is always key to a fair trial for someone who has plead not guilty.

In regard to his murder trial Paul Hill had been relying upon a brief that had been prepared for him by lawyers who had not been allowed to act as his co-counsels because they were both from out-of-state -- in effect he was denied counsel of choice. The legal brief, which had been presented in a timely fashion by Paul Hill, apparently had not even been read by either Judge Bell or the prosecuting attorney. The brief was neither referred to nor responded to. The brief clearly established the appropriateness of the necessity defense -- in this case justifiable homicide -- according to Florida state law. The attitude of both judge Bell and the prosecuting attorneys clearly indicated at this point that Paul Hill was going to be convicted, no matter what!

For the sake of justice it is my belief that Paul Jennings Hill should not only be released from his death sentences but should also be granted new trials.

Sincerely in Christ,

/s/

Reverend David C. Trosch

Editor

Contributions Requested
for Maintaining Site

Books and Religious Gift Items

Document provided as a service of:
LIFE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED
(A 501-c-3 Non-Profit Organization)
P. O. Box 850307
Mobile, AL 36685
U. S. A.

Contributions Requested for Maintaining Site

Contributions Requested
for Maintaining Site