Opinion ID: 751126
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Applicability of a Criminal Defense

Text: 27 Mr. Jaques' final argument is that he should be excused for his actions because he was going to the aid of another, his expert witness, Dr. Kresta. Specifically, Mr. Jaques asserts that he feared that Mr. Emery was going to assault Dr. Kresta. In support of his argument, Mr. Jaques cites to a Michigan pattern criminal jury instruction which provides that a person has the right to use force to defend another under certain circumstances. CJI 2d § 7.22. However, the individual must honestly believe that force is needed to protect the third party and must only use the degree of force necessary to protect the third party from danger. Id. 28 It is not surprising that Mr. Jaques has not cited any cases that support his contention that this criminal defense is applicable to the imposition of civil sanctions pursuant to § 1927. We hold that it is not. However, even if we assume that this defense is applicable to § 1927, Mr. Jaques has failed to satisfy the requirements. 29 Upon careful review of the witnesses' statements we do not believe that Mr. Jaques honestly believed that Dr. Kresta was about to be assaulted; thus, no force was needed. In his statement to the FPS, Dr. Kresta stated that Mr. Emery arrogantly took the rope from [his] hands and prevented [him] from inspection of the rope. See supra note 2 (emphasis added). Donald Krispin, co-counsel to Mr. Jaques, stated to the FPS, that Mr. Emery shouted and threatened Mr. Jaques and Dr. Kresta pulling the exhibit from plaintiffs expert and pulling the box away from Mr. Jaques. Id. Mr. Jaques claims that Mr. Emery shouted to [his] expert, 'don't handle my rope, god damn you, you are not going to [illegible] my rope at all!'  See supra Part I (emphasis added). 30 There is no indication that Mr. Emery attempted to assault Dr. Kresta. Dr. Kresta himself never said he was in fear of assault, and therefore, in need of assistance. 6 All that is clear is that Mr. Emery took the rope from Dr. Kresta. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Emery shouted at Dr. Kresta and Mr. Jaques does not justify the use of physical force. Force can seldom be justified when used as a response to mere words, no matter how vile the words may be. Mr. Jaques has failed to satisfy the essential elements of this defense; in this Court's opinion, Mr. Jaques could not have honestly believed that force was necessary. Therefore, even if this defense applied to § 1927 actions, Mr. Jaques' contentions are without merit and must fail.