Editing Civil disobedience (section)

===== Trial strategies =====
[[Steven Barkan]] writes that if defendants plead not guilty, "they must decide whether their primary goal will be to win an acquittal and avoid imprisonment or a fine, or to use the proceedings as a forum to inform the jury and the public of the political circumstances surrounding the case and their reasons for breaking the law via civil disobedience." A [[technical defence]] may enhance the chances for acquittal but increase the possibility of additional proceedings and of reduced press coverage. During the [[Vietnam War]] era, the [[Chicago Eight]] used a [[political defence]], but [[Benjamin Spock trial|Benjamin Spock]] used a technical defence.<ref>{{citation|title=Strategic, Tactical and Organizational Dilemmas of the Protest Movement against Nuclear Power|author=Steven E. Barkan|author-link=Steven Barkan|publisher=Social Problems|volume=27|issue=1|date=Oct 1979|pages=19–37}}</ref> In countries such as the United States, whose laws guarantee the right to a [[jury trial]] but do not excuse lawbreaking for political purposes, some civil disobedients seek [[jury nullification]]. Over the years, this has been made more difficult by court decisions such as ''[[Sparf v. United States]]'', which held that the judge need not inform jurors of their nullification prerogative, and ''[[United States v. Dougherty]]'', which held that the judge need not allow defendants to openly seek jury nullification.