The Trial of the Minnesotan Valve Turners
On October 11th, 2016, nine climate activists directly acted to shut down the Canadian tar sands crude oil coming into the United States. In a coordinated effort across four states, Ken Ward, Leonard Higgins, Michael Foster, Emily Johnston, and Annette Klapstein closed the safety valves on five pipelines, stopping the flow of 2.8 million barrels of oil (about 15% of US daily consumption). The so-called “Valve Turners” videotaped and livestreamed the events [https://vimeo.com/187580141], calling the pipeline companies with their intentions to ensure the pipelines were shut off safely. Then, they waited patiently for the police to arrive. They were arrested and charged with criminal damage to a pipeline, and aiding and abetting criminal damage to a pipeline.
What made this case so exciting was that the defendants were allowed to use the necessity defense, meaning the defense argued the actions the valve turners took were necessary to avoid worse harm, in this case, the effects of climate change. The necessity defense was thrown out by the judges in the other states where the valve turners acted, making the Minnesota trial potentially precedent-setting. The necessity defense allows the activists to have climate experts testify to the jury about the harms of climate change, making it the central argument of the case.
The effects of climate change are widespread and possibly irreversible [https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/]. Although people are largely aware that the energy industry is a huge contributor to climate change, our consumption habits have not changed for the better. And although the effects of climate change could indeed be catastrophic, the idea is too intangible for most people to take action. The valve turners put themselves on the line to show that this could indeed be a fight for our lives.
On October 8th, 2018, the cases of the State of Minnesota v. Emily Johnston, State of Minnesota v. Annette Klapstein, and State of Minnesota v. Ben Joldersma began at 8:30 AM. Johnston, Klapstein and Joldersma plead not guilty. Fifty-six potential jurors were summoned to the courthouse and participated in jury selection. The potential jurors, along with the judge, defendants, attorneys, and bailiffs nearly filled the small Clearwater County courtroom. All spectators were directed across the hall to watch the proceedings via a livestream video.
Amongst the spectators was an air of excitement, anticipation and familiarity. Local water protectors and activists from around the state filled up the viewing gallery and watched intently as the events of the day unfolded. As the technician set up the livestream, someone commented “it’s just like watching tv!”; except when you walked out into the hallway on break, the defendants are there, real people, standing ten feet in front of you.
The bulk of the day revolved around jury selection. After some brief formalities and discussion between the judge and the attorneys, the fifty-six potential jurors filed into the courtroom, as the judge calmly stated, “You are called today to the Clearwater County Court for jury selection in a criminal case…”
The judge swore in the jury candidates and immediately, the jury selection procedures began. It was a long and arduous process, repeating the same questions aimed at gauging impartiality. The judge asked each juror who they knew involved in the case, knowledge of the case, potential biases, experience with the criminal justice system, and, above all, if any of these things would impair the juror’s ability to remain fair. Throughout the day, the judge excused several jurors, repeating the process many times, each iteration beginning with a smaller candidate pool than the last.
Next, the attorneys were allowed to ask the potential jurors their own questions to determine suitability. One of the most potent questions posed by the defense attorneys was whether the jurors had any strong feelings or beliefs about climate change, making the most dramatic moment of the day when two potential jurors adamantly claimed that they did not believe climate change was real. A couple of heads went down and eyes went up as people silently expressed their anguish and disappointment. The mood in the room quickly recovered though, as the attorneys continued on with their questions.
It was a day filled with anticipation and excited energy. Though sobering to sit in a courthouse where the stakes are high, the overall mood of the room was one of hope.
After a full day of jury selection, the trial ended rather abruptly, as the judge dismissed the case based on the fact that the Valve Turners did not cause damage to the pipeline, merely damaged a chain and lock. While most of the courtroom was happy with the result, some were left with mixed feelings. State Representative Pat Garofalo claimed the decision was irresponsible and only encourages future protest, while the Valve Turners and their attorneys acknowledged a need for further action on climate change [https://www.bemidjipioneer.com/]. Further disappointment remained, as the necessity defense for actions addressing climate change never got its day in court, but the decision to throw out the case does not negate the possibility of using the defence in the future.
