Also known as: reasonable alternatives
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An option or course of conduct that is feasible and adequate to achieve the relevant legal objective without triggering the coercive or exclusionary consequence at issue. The concept requires decision-makers to identify and evaluate such options before imposing exclusion, voidability, or involuntariness findings.
Rachel Ramirez seeks to attend the sentencing of the defendant who assaulted her. The prosecutor moves to exclude her from part of the hearing. The court finds that her testimony could be affected by hearing other evidence but identifies a seating arrangement allowing her to attend without viewing the disputed testimony. The court permits her attendance under that arrangement rather than ordering full exclusion.
Ronald Reed faces foreclosure in ten days and receives an offer from Ridgeway Partners well below market value. The buyer threatens to publicize the foreclosure to Reed's employer unless he signs immediately. Reed learns of two other potential buyers willing to pay closer to market value if given a few extra days. The existence of those buyers supplies a reasonable alternative that prevents the threat from rendering the contract voidable.
Regina Robinson, a stagehand, refuses to work under a visibly unsecured lighting rig. Her director threatens to remove her from all future productions if she leaves. Robinson stays and is injured when the rig falls. Because the director's threat left her with no reasonable alternative that preserved her livelihood, her continued presence does not constitute voluntary assumption of the risk.
A defendant charged under a federal statute prohibiting firearms near schools argues the law exceeds Congress's commerce power. The statute lacks any jurisdictional element tying possession to interstate commerce. The absence of such an element leaves no reasonable alternative construction that would avoid the constitutional question presented.
Chicago enforces an ordinance allowing police to disperse groups that include suspected gang members. Challengers argue the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. The city contends that narrower interpretations or targeted enforcement against harmful conduct supply reasonable alternatives that would cure the vagueness without striking the entire law.
A trial court considers closing voir dire to protect juror privacy. The press objects on First Amendment grounds. The court must evaluate whether measures such as in-camera questioning of only sensitive jurors or redacted transcripts constitute reasonable alternatives before ordering complete closure.
On December 23, 1981, the State of California filed a complaint in the Riverside County Municipal Court charging Robert Diaz with 12 counts of murder and seeking the death penalty. The complaint alleged that Diaz, a nurse, murdered 12 patients by administering massive doses of the heart drug lidocaine. The preliminary hearing on the complaint commenced on July 6, 1982. Diaz moved to exclude the public from the proceedings under Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 868 (West 1985). The Magistrate granted the unopposed motion, finding that closure was necessary because the case had attracted national publicity and "only one side may get reported in the media." The preliminary hearing continued for 41 days. Most of the testimony and the evidence presented by the State was medical and scientific; the remainder consisted of testimony by personnel who worked with Diaz on the shifts when the 12 patients died. Diaz did not introduce any evidence, but his counsel subjected most of the witnesses to vigorous cross-examination. Diaz was held to answer on all charges. At the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner Press-Enterprise Company asked that the transcript of the proceedings be released. The Magistrate refused and sealed the record. On January 21, 1983, the State moved in Superior Court to have the transcript of the preliminary hearing released to the public; petitioner later joined in support of the motion. Diaz opposed the motion, contending that release of the transcript would result in prejudicial pretrial publicity. The Superior Court found that the information in the transcript was "as factual as it could be," and that the facts were neither "inflammatory" nor "exciting." It concluded that there was nonetheless "a reasonable likelihood that release of all or any part of the transcripts might prejudice defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial." Petitioner then filed a peremptory writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal. That court originally denied the writ but, after being so ordered by the California Supreme Court, set the matter for a hearing. Meanwhile, Diaz waived his right to a jury trial and the Superior Court released the transcript. After holding that the controversy was not moot, the Court of Appeal denied the writ of mandate. The California Supreme Court thereafter denied petitioner's peremptory writ of mandate. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA contract is voidable for duress only when an improper threat leaves the victim with no reasonable alternative. If another feasible option exists, such as pursuing other buyers or seeking legal advice, the threat does not render the contract voidable.
Supporting sources
Assumption of risk requires voluntary acceptance. If the defendant's conduct leaves the plaintiff with no reasonable alternative course of conduct to avoid harm or protect a right, the acceptance is not voluntary and the defense fails.
Supporting sources
The court must make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible and must consider reasonable alternatives to exclusion. Exclusion is permitted only upon clear and convincing evidence that the victim's testimony would be materially altered, and the reasons must be stated on the record.
Supporting sources
…a statute in a manner that requires decision of serious constitutional questions only if the statutory language leaves no reasonable alternative"). Unlike the statute in Bass , § 922(q) has no express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach to a discrete set of firearm possessions that additionally have an explicit…