Replies

The Defense's Case

Unlike the prosecution, which downplays the yearlong dispute between the defendants and the Oregon Department of Human Services, defense attorney Edgar Steele insists that the actions of the State of Oregon triggered the events of August 1, 2001.

Steele, in fact, hoped to be allowed to argue a "choice of evils" defense in this trial — a plan that was ultimately thwarted when Judge William Lasswell ruled against him.

Nevertheless, the defense hopes to convince the jurors that Brian and Ruth Christine were forced to act only after they struggled for a year with a governmental system prejudiced against them.

That is, of course, if the Christines were actually involved in the carjacking at all — a concession that the defense is not willing to make.

Despite all the facts that appear to support the state's charge that Brian and Ruth planned and carried out the events of August 1, Steele insisted that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Christines were indeed the people who took back their children from the state's custody. Not surprisingly, Steele argues that there is insufficient evidence for jurors to so find.

Most of the defense case, in fact, is built around evidence purporting to show that Brian and Ruth Christine are gentle people, good Christians and loving parents who would do anything to protect their children.

The defense challenges the SCF allegations that Bethany, Lydia, and Miriam were abused or malnourished at the time they were taken into protective custody. Photographs taken at the time show three young children who appear to be quite thin, but the defense argues that the children merely reflect the genetic makeup of their parents, who are both tall and slender.

And the Christines, both vegetarians who are raising their children to be vegetarians, deny that they ever withheld food from the girls — although they do admit that the family sometimes fasted as a religious practice.

Besides arguing the facts, the defense in this case disputes the law. Attorney Steele insists that the two top counts, robbery and kidnapping, have been overcharged, and are wholly inappropriate to the circumstances at hand. Brian and Ruth, for example, stand accused of stealing the state's van as well as personal belongings of Terrance Nelson and Jennifer Barrett — but the van and belongings were found only a few miles away from where they were taken, untouched and undamaged, with their value intact.

The defense refutes the kidnapping charges as well, arguing that neither Nelson nor Barrett were actually taken hostage against their wills, but merely directed to move a few feet up and out of the van. This action, according to attorney Steele, comes anywhere close to the definition of "kidnapping" as it is normally understood.

Steele also contends that the state cannot prove that the Christines intended to do anything on August 1, 2001 other than to rescue their wrongly-taken children and reunite their family.

The couple has many supporters who protested outside the Roseburg, Ore., courthouse and regularly appeared in the courtroom as observers, representing a wide spectrum of viewpoints and political positions.

Some were supporting Brian and Ruth's actions out of a specific frustration with the actions of Oregon's Services to Children and Families, a system they feel is corrupt. Others, leaning toward the camp of the political right, apparently have wider-ranging anti-government views, seeing the Christines as victims of overzealous and over-reaching government authorities. And some believe the Christines are religious martyrs, struggling against an aggressively secular system of government that has forsaken Christianity.