Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The National Firearms Act makes it unlawful for any person to possess a machinegun that is not properly registered with the Federal Government. Petitioner contends that, to convict him under the Act, the Government should have been required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the weapon he possessed had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a machinegun. We agree and accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

The National Firearms Act (Act), 26 U. S. C. §§5801-5872, imposes strict registration requirements on statutorily defined “firearms.” The Act includes within the term “firearm” a machinegun, § 5845(a)(6), and further defines a machinegun as “any weapon which shoots,... or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,” § 5845(b). Thus, any fully automatic weapon is a “firearm” within the meaning of the Act.1 Under the Act, all firearms must be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Secretary of the Treasury. § 5841. Section 5861(d) makes it a crime, punish*603able by up to 10 years in prison, see § 5871, for any person to possess a firearm that is not properly registered.

Upon executing a search warrant at petitioner’s home, local police and agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) recovered, among other things, an AR-15 rifle. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire. Many M-16 parts are interchangeable with those in the AR-15 and can be used to convert the AR-15 into an automatic weapon. No doubt to inhibit such conversions, the AR-15 is manufactured with a metal stop on its receiver that will prevent an M-16 selector switch, if installed, from rotating to the fully automatic position. The metal stop on petitioner’s rifle, however, had been filed away, and the rifle had been assembled with an M-16 selector switch and several other M-16 internal parts, including a hammer, disconnector, and trigger. Suspecting that the AR-15 had been modified to be capable of fully automatic fire, BATF agents seized the weapon. Petitioner subsequently was indicted for unlawful possession of an unregistered machinegun in violation of § 5861(d).

At trial, BATF agents testified that when the AR-15 was tested, it fired more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. It was undisputed that the weapon was not registered as required by § 5861(d). Petitioner testified that the rifle had never fired automatically when it was in his possession. He insisted that the AR-15 had operated only semiautomatically, and even then imperfectly, often requiring manual ejection of the spent casing and chambering of the next round. • According to petitioner, his alleged ignorance of any automatic firing capability should have shielded him from criminal liability for his failure to register the weapon. He requested the District Court to instruct the jury that, to establish a violation of § 5861(d), the Government must prove *604beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “knew that the gun would fire fully automatically.” 1 App. to Brief for Appellant in No. 91-5033 (CA10), p. 42.

The District Court rejected petitioner’s proposed instruction and instead charged the jury as follows:

“The Government need not prove the defendant knows he’s dealing with a weapon possessing every last characteristic [which subjects it]2 to the regulation. It would be enough to prove he knows that he is dealing with a dangerous device of a type as would alert one to the likelihood of regulation.” Tr. 465.

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to five years’ probation and a $5,000 fine.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. Relying on its decision in United States v. Mittleider, 835 F. 2d 769 (CA10 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 980 (1988), the court concluded that the Government need not prove a defendant’s knowledge of a weapon’s physical properties to obtain a conviction under § 5861(d). 971 F. 2d 608, 612-613 (CA10 1992). We granted certiorari, 508 U. S. 939 (1993), to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals concerning the mens rea required under § 5861(d).

II

A

Whether or not § 5861(d) requires proof that a defendant knew of the characteristics of his weapon that made it a “firearm” under the Act is a question of statutory construction. As we observed in Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419 (1985), “[t]he definition of the elements of a criminal offense is entrusted to the legislature, particularly in the case of federal crimes, which are solely creatures of statute.” Id., at 424 (citing United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32 *605(1812)). Thus, we have long recognized that determining the mental state required for commission of a federal crime requires “construction of the statute and . . . inference of the intent of Congress.” United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250, 253 (1922). See also Liparota, supra, at 423.

The language of the statute, the starting place in our inquiry, see Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253-254 (1992), provides little explicit guidance in this case. Section 5861(d) is silent concerning the mens rea required for a violation. It states simply that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person ... to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.” 26 U. S. C. § 5861(d). Nevertheless, silence on this point by itself does not necessarily suggest that Congress intended to dispense with a conventional mens rea element, which would require that the defendant know the facts that make his conduct illegal. See Balint, supra, at 251 (stating that traditionally, “scienter” was a necessary element in every crime). See also n. 3, infra. On the contrary, we must construe the statute in light of the background rules of the common law, see United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 436-437 (1978), in which the requirement of some mens rea for a crime is firmly embedded. As we have observed, “[t]he existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence.” Id., at 436 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 250 (1952) (“The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil”).

There can be no doubt that this established concept has influenced our interpretation of criminal statutes. Indeed, we have noted that the common-law rule requiring mens rea *606has been “followed in regard to statutory crimes even where the statutory definition did not in terms include it.” Balint, supra, at 251-252. Relying on the strength of the traditional rule, we have stated that offenses that require no mens rea generally are disfavored, Liparota, supra, at 426, and have suggested that some indication of congressional intent, express or implied, is required to dispense with mens rea as an element of a crime. Cf. United States Gypsum, supra, at 438; Morissette, supra, at 263.

According to the Government, however, the nature and purpose of the Act suggest that the presumption favoring mens rea does not apply to this case. The Government argues that Congress intended the Act to regulate and restrict the circulation of dangerous weapons. Consequently, in the Government’s view, this case fits in a line of precedent concerning what we have termed “public welfare” or “regulatory” offenses, in which we have understood Congress to impose a form of strict criminal liability through statutes that do not require the defendant to know the facts that make his conduct illegal. In construing such statutes, we have inferred from silence that Congress did not intend to require proof of mens rea to establish an offense.

For example, in Balint, we concluded that the Narcotic Act of 1914, which was intended in part to minimize the spread of addictive drugs by criminalizing undocumented sales of certain narcotics, required proof only that the defendant knew that he was selling drugs, not that he knew the specific items he had sold were “narcotics” within the ambit of the statute. See Balint, supra, at 254. Cf. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 281 (1943) (stating in dicta that a statute criminalizing the shipment of adulterated or misbranded drugs did not require knowledge that the items were misbranded or adulterated). As we explained in Dotterweich, Balint dealt with “a now familiar type of legislation whereby penalties serve as effective means of regulation. Such legislation dispenses with the conven*607tional requirement for criminal conduct — awareness of some wrongdoing.” 320 U. S., at 280-281. See also Morissette, supra, at 252-256.

Such public welfare offenses have been created by Congress, and recognized by this Court, in “limited circumstances.” United States Gypsum, supra, at 487. Typically, our cases recognizing such offenses involve statutes that regulate potentially harmful or injurious items. Cf. United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U. S. 558, 564-565 (1971) (characterizing Balint and similar cases as involving statutes regulating “dangerous or deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste materials”). In such situations, we have reasoned that as long as a defendant knows that he is dealing with a dangerous device of a character that places him “in responsible relation to a public danger,” Dotterweich, supra, at 281, he should be alerted to the probability of strict regulation, and we have assumed that in such cases Congress intended to place the burden on the defendant to “ascertain at his peril whether [his conduct] comes within the inhibition of the statute.” Balint, supra, at 254. Thus, we essentially have relied on the nature of the statute and the particular character of the items regulated to determine whether congressional silence concerning the mental element of the offense should be interpreted as dispensing with conventional mens rea requirements. See generally Morissette, supra, at 252-260.3

*608B

The Government argues that § 5861(d) defines precisely the sort of regulatory offense described in Balint. In this view, all guns, whether or not they are statutory “firearms,” are dangerous devices that put gun owners on notice that they must determine at their hazard whether their weapons come within the scope of the Act. On this understanding, the District Court’s instruction in this case was correct, because a conviction can rest simply on proof that a defendant knew he possessed a “firearm” in the ordinary sense of the term.

The Government seeks support for its position from our decision in United States v. Freed, 401 U. S. 601 (1971), which involved a prosecution for possession of unregistered grenades under § 5861(d).4 The defendant knew that the items in his possession were grenades, and we concluded that § 5861(d) did not require the Government to prove the defendant also knew that the grenades were unregistered. Id., at 609. To be sure, in deciding that mens rea was not required with respect to that element of the offense, we sug*609gested that the Act “is a regulatory measure in the interest of the public safety, which may well be premised on the theory that one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of hand grenades is not an innocent act.” Ibid. Grenades, we explained, “are highly dangerous offensive weapons, no less dangerous than the narcotics involved in United States v. Balint.” Ibid. But that reasoning provides little support for dispensing with mens rea in this case.

As the Government concedes, Freed did not address the issue presented here. In Freed, we decided only that § 5861(d) does not require proof of knowledge that a firearm is unregistered. The question presented by a defendant who possesses a weapon that is a “firearm” for purposes of the Act, but who knows only that he has a “firearm” in the general sense of the term, was not raised or considered. And our determination that a defendant need not know that his weapon is unregistered suggests no conclusion concerning whether § 5861(d) requires the defendant to know of the features that make his weapon a statutory “firearm”; different elements of the same offense can require different mental states. See Liparota, 471 U. S., at 428, n. 5; United States v. Bailey, 444 U. S. 394, 405-406 (1980). See also W. La-Fave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law 194-195 (1972). Moreover, our analysis in Freed likening the Act to the public welfare statute in Balint rested entirely on the assumption that the defendant knew that he was dealing with hand grenades — that is, that he knew he possessed a particularly dangerous type of weapon (one within the statutory definition of a “firearm”), possession of which was not entirely “innocent” in and of itself. 401 U. S., at 609. The predicate for that analysis is eliminated when, as in this case, the very question to be decided is whether the defendant must know of the particular characteristics that make his weapon a statutory firearm.

Notwithstanding these distinctions, the Government urges that Freed’s logic applies because guns, no less than gre*610nades, are highly dangerous devices that should alert their owners to the probability of regulation. But the gap between Freed and this case is too wide to bridge. In glossing over the distinction between grenades and guns, the. Government ignores the particular care we have taken to avoid construing a statute to dispense with mens rea where doing so would “criminalize a broad range of apparently innocent conduct.” Liparota, 471 U. S., at 426. In Liparota, we considered a statute that made unlawful the unauthorized acquisition or possession of food stamps. We determined that the statute required proof that the defendant knew his possession of food stamps was unauthorized, largely because dispensing with such a mens rea requirement would have resulted in reading the statute to outlaw a number of apparently innocent acts. Ibid. Our conclusion that the statute should not be treated as defining a public welfare offense rested on the commonsense distinction that a “food stamp can hardly be compared to a hand grenade.” Id., at 433.

Neither, in our view, can all guns be compared to hand grenades. Although the contrast is certainly not as stark as that presented in Liparota, the fact remains that there is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country. Such a tradition did not apply to the possession of hand grenades in Freed or to the selling of dangerous drugs that we considered in Balint. See also International Minerals, 402 U. S., at 563-565; Balint, 258 U. S., at 254. In fact, in Freed we construed § 5861(d) under the assumption that “one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of hand grenades is not an innocent act.” Freed, supra, at 609. Here, the Government essentially suggests that we should interpret the section under the altogether different assumption that “one would hardly be surprised to learn that owning a gun is not an innocent act.” That proposition is simply not supported by common experience. Guns in general are not “deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste materials,” International Minerals, *611supra, at 565, that put their owners on notice that they stand “in responsible relation to a public danger,” Dotterweich, 320 U. S., at 281.

The Government protests that guns, unlike food stamps, but like grenades and narcotics, are potentially harmful devices.5 Under this view, it seems that Liparota’s concern for criminalizing ostensibly innocuous conduct is inapplicable whenever an item is sufficiently dangerous — that is, dangerousness alone should alert an individual to probable regulation and justify treating a statute that regulates the dangerous device as dispensing with mens rea. But that an item is “dangerous,” in some general sense, does not necessarily suggest, as the Government seems to assume, that it is not also entirely innocent. Even dangerous items can, in some cases, be so commonplace and generally available that we would not consider them to alert individuals to the likelihood of strict regulation. As suggested above, despite their potential for harm, guns generally can be owned in perfect innocence. Of course, we might surely classify certain categories of guns — no doubt including the machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, and artillery pieces that Congress has subjected to *612regulation — as items the ownership of which would have the same quasi-suspect character we attributed to owning hand grenades in Freed. But precisely because guns falling outside those categories traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions, their destructive potential, while perhaps even greater than that of some items we would classify along with narcotics and hand grenades, cannot be said to put gun owners sufficiently on notice of the likelihood of regulation to justify interpreting § 5861(d) as not requiring proof of knowledge of a weapon’s characteristics.6

*613On a slightly different tack, the Government suggests that guns are subject to an array of regulations at the federal, state, and local levels that put gun owners on notice that they must determine the characteristics of their weapons and comply with all legal requirements.7 But regulation in itself is not sufficient to place gun ownership in the category of the sale of narcotics in Balint. The food stamps at issue in Liparota were subject to comprehensive regulations, yet we did not understand the statute there to dispense with a mens rea requirement. Moreover, despite the overlay of legal restrictions on gun ownership, we question whether regulations on guns are sufficiently intrusive that they im-. pinge upon the common experience that owning a gun is usually licit and blameless conduct. Roughly 50 percent of *614American homes contain at least one firearm of some sort,8 and in the vast majority of States, buying a shotgun or rifle is a simple transaction that would not alert a person to regulation any more than would buying a car.9

If we were to accept as a general rule the Government’s suggestion that dangerous and regulated items place their owners under an obligation to inquire at their peril into compliance with regulations, we would undoubtedly reach some untoward results. Automobiles, for example, might also be termed “dangerous” devices and are highly regulated at both the state and federal levels. Congress might see fit to criminalize the violation of certain regulations concerning automobiles, and thus might make it a crime to operate a vehicle without a properly functioning emission control system. But we probably would hesitate to conclude on the basis of silence that Congress intended a prison term to apply to a car owner whose vehicle’s emissions levels, wholly unbeknownst to him, began to exceed legal limits between regular inspection dates.

Here, there can be little doubt that, as in Liparota, the Government’s construction of the statute potentially would impose criminal sanctions on a class of persons whose mental state — ignorance of the characteristics of weapons in their *615possession — makes their actions entirely innocent.10 The Government does not dispute the contention that virtually any semiautomatic weapon may be converted, either by internal modification or, in some cases, simply by wear and tear, into a machinegun within the meaning of the Act. Cf. United States v. Anderson, 885 F. 2d 1248, 1251, 1253-1254 (CA5 1989) (en banc). Such a gun may give no externally visible indication that it is fully automatic. See United States v. Herbert, 698 F. 2d 981, 986 (CA9), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 821 (1983). But in the Government’s view, any person who has purchased what he believes to be a semiautomatic rifle or handgun, or who simply has inherited a gun from a relative and left it untouched in an attic or basement, can be subject to imprisonment, despite absolute ignorance of the gun’s firing capabilities, if the gun turns out to be an automatic.

We concur in the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion on this point: “It is unthinkable to us that Congress intended to subject such law-abiding, well-intentioned citizens to a possible ten-year term of imprisonment if . . . what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semi-automatic [weapon] turns out to have worn down into or been secretly modified to be a fully automatic weapon.” Anderson, supra, at 1254. As we noted in Morissette, the “purpose and obvious effect of doing away with the requirement of a guilty intent is to ease the prosecution’s path to conviction.” 342 U. S., at 263.11 We are reluctant to impute that purpose to *616Congress where, as here, it would mean easing the path to convicting persons whose conduct would not even alert them to the probability of strict regulation in the form of a statute such as § 5861(d).

C

The potentially harsh penalty attached to violation of § 5861(d) — up to 10 years’ imprisonment — confirms our reading of the Act. Historically, the penalty imposed under a statute has been a significant consideration in determining whether the statute should be construed as dispensing with mens rea. Certainly, the cases that first defined the concept of the public welfare offense almost uniformly involved statutes that provided for only light penalties such as fines or short jail sentences, not imprisonment in the state penitentiary. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Raymond, 97 Mass. 567 (1867) (fine of up to $200 or six months in jail, or both); Commonwealth v. Fatten, 91 Mass. 489 (1864) (fine); People v. Snowburger, 113 Mich. 86, 71 N. W. 497 (1897) (fine of up to $500 or incarceration in county jail).12

As commentators have pointed out, the small penalties attached to such offenses logically complemented the absence of a mens tea requirement: In a system that generally re*617quires a “vicious will” to establish a crime, 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *21, imposing severe punishments for offenses that require no mens rea would seem incongruous. See Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev. 55, 70 (1933). Indeed, some courts justified the absence of mens rea in part on the basis that the offenses did not bear the same punishments as “infamous crimes,” Tenement House Dept. v. McDevitt, 215 N. Y. 160, 168, 109 N. E. 88, 90 (1915) (Cardozo, J.), and questioned whether imprisonment was compatible with the reduced culpability required for such regulatory offenses. See, e. g., People ex rel. Price v. Sheffield Farms-Slawson-Decker Co., 225 N. Y. 25, 32-33, 121 N. E. 474, 477 (1918) (Cardozo, J.); id., at 35, 121 N. E., at 478 (Crane, J., concurring) (arguing that imprisonment for a crime that requires no mens rea would stretch the law regarding acts mala prohibita beyond its limitations).13 Similarly, commentators collecting the early cases have argued that offenses punishable by imprisonment cannot be understood to be public welfare offenses, but must require mens rea. See R. Perkins, Criminal Law 793-798 (2d ed. 1969) (suggesting that the penalty should be the starting point in determining whether a statute describes a public welfare offense); Sayre, supra, at 72 (“Crimes punishable with prison sentences . . . ordinarily require proof of a guilty intent”).14

In rehearsing the characteristics of the public welfare offense, we, too, have included in our consideration the punishments imposed and have noted that “penalties commonly are relatively small, and conviction does no grave damage to an *618offender’s reputation.” Morissette, 342 U. S., at 256.15 We have even recognized that it was “[u]nder such considerations” that courts have construed statutes to dispense with mens rea. Ibid.

Our characterization of the public welfare offense in Morissette hárdly seems apt, however, for a crime that is a felony, as is violation of § 5861(d).16 After all, “felony” is, as we noted in distinguishing certain common-law crimes from public welfare offenses, “ ‘as bad a word as you can give to man or thing.’” Id., at 260 (quoting 2 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, History of English Law 465 (2d ed. 1899)). Close adherence to the early cases described above might suggest that punishing a violation as a felony is simply incompatible with the theory of the public welfare offense. In this view, absent a clear statement from Congress that mens rea is not required, we should not apply the public welfare offense rationale to interpret any statute defining a felony offense as dispensing with mens rea. But see United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250 (1922).

We need not adopt such a definitive rule of construction to decide this case, however. Instead, we note only that where, as here, dispensing with mens rea would require the defendant to have knowledge only of traditionally lawful conduct, a severe penalty is a further factor tending to suggest that Congress did not intend to eliminate a mens rea require*619ment. In such a case, the usual presumption that a defendant must know the facts that make his conduct illegal should apply.

Ill

In short, we conclude that the background rule of the common law favoring mens rea should govern interpretation of § 5861(d) in this case. Silence does not suggest that Congress dispensed with mens rea for the element of § 5861(d) at issue here. Thus, to obtain a conviction, the Government should have been required to prove that petitioner knew of the features of his AR-15 that brought it within the scope of the Act.17

We emphasize that our holding is a narrow one. As in our prior cases, our reasoning depends upon a commonsense evaluation of the nature of the particular device or substance Congress has subjected to regulation and the expectations that individuals may legitimately have in dealing with the regulated items. In addition, we think that the penalty attached to § 5861(d) suggests that Congress did not intend to eliminate a mens rea requirement for violation of the section. As we noted in Morissette: “Neither this Court nor, *620so far as we are aware, any other has undertaken to delineate a precise line or set forth comprehensive criteria for distinguishing between crimes that require a mental element and crimes that do not.” 342 U. S., at 260. We attempt no definition here, either. We note only that our holding depends critically on our view that if Congress had intended to make outlaws of gun owners who were wholly ignorant of the offending characteristics of their weapons, and to subject them to lengthy prison terms, it would have spoken more clearly to that effect. Cf. United States v. Harris, 959 F. 2d 246, 261 (CADC), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 932 (1992).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Justice Ginsburg,

with whom Justice O’Connor joins,

concurring in the judgment.

The statute petitioner Harold E. Staples is charged with violating, 26 U. S. C. § 5861(d), makes it a crime for any person to “receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him.” Although the word “knowingly” does not appear in the statute’s text, courts generally assume that Congress, absent a contrary indication, means to retain a mens rea requirement. Ante, at 606; see Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419, 426 (1985); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 437-438 (1978).1 Thus, our holding in United States v. Freed, 401 U. S. 601 (1971), that § 5861(d) does not require proof of knowledge that the firearm is unregistered, rested on the premise that the defendant indeed *621knew the items he possessed were hand grenades. Id., at 607; id., at 612 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (“The Government and the Court agree that the prosecutor must prove knowing possession of the items and also knowledge that the items possessed were hand grenades.”).

Conviction under § 5861(d), the Government accordingly concedes, requires proof that Staples “knowingly” possessed the machinegun. Brief for United States 23. The question before us is not whether knowledge of possession is required, but what level of knowledge suffices: (1) knowledge simply of possession of the object; (2) knowledge, in addition, that the object is a dangerous weapon; (3) knowledge, beyond dangerousness, of the characteristics that render the object subject to regulation, for example, awareness that the weapon is a machinegun.2

Recognizing that the first reading effectively dispenses with mens rea, the Government adopts the second, contending that it avoids criminalizing “apparently innocent conduct,” Liparota, supra, at 426, because under the second reading, “a defendant who possessed what he thought was a toy or a violin case, but which in fact was a machinegun, could not be convicted.” Brief for United States 23. The Government, however, does not take adequate account of the “widespread lawful gun ownership” Congress and the States have allowed to persist in this country. See United States v. Harris, 959 F. 2d 246, 261 (CADC) (per curiam), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 932 (1992). Given the notable lack of comprehensive regulation, “mere unregistered possession of certain types of [regulated weapons] — often [difficult to dis*622tinguish] from other, [nonregulated] types,” has been held inadequate to establish the requisite knowledge. See 959 F. 2d, at 261.

The Nation’s legislators chose to place under a registration requirement only a very limited class of firearms, those they considered especially dangerous. The generally “dangerous” character of all guns, the Court therefore observes, ante, at 611-612, did not suffice to give individuals in Staples’ situation cause to inquire about the need for registration. Cf. United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250 (1922) (requiring reporting of sale of strictly regulated narcotics, opium and cocaine). Only the third reading, then, suits the purpose of the mens rea requirement — to shield people against punishment for apparently innocent activity.3

The indictment in Staples’ case charges that he “knowingly received and possessed firearms.” 1 App. to Brief for Appellant in No. 91-5033 (CA10), p. I.4 “Firearms” has a *623circumscribed statutory definition. See 26 U. S. C. § 5845(a). The “firear[m]” the Government contends Staples possessed in violation of § 5861(d) is a machinegun. See § 5845(a)(6). The indictment thus effectively charged that Staples knowingly possessed a machinegun. “Knowingly possessed” logically means “possessed and knew that he possessed.” The Government can reconcile the jury instruction5 with the indictment only on the implausible assumption that the term “firear[m]” has two different meanings when used once in the same charge — simply “gun” when referring to what petitioner knew, and “machinegun” when referring to what he possessed. See Cunningham, Levi, Green, & Kaplan, Plain Meaning and Hard Cases, 103 Yale L. J. 1561, 1576-1577 (1994); cf. Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 143 (1994) (construing statutory term to bear same meaning “each time it is called into play”).

For these reasons, I conclude that conviction under § 5861(d) requires proof that the defendant knew he possessed not simply a gun, but a machinegun. The indictment in this case, but not the jury instruction, properly described this knowledge requirement. I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment.

*624Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins,

dissenting.

To avoid a slight possibility of injustice to unsophisticated owners of machineguns and sawed-off shotguns, the Court has substituted its views of sound policy for the judgment Congress made when it enacted the National Firearms Act (or Act). Because the Court’s addition to the text of 26 U. S. C. § 5861(d) is foreclosed by both the statute and our precedent, I respectfully dissent.

The Court is preoccupied with guns that “generally can be owned in perfect innocence.” Ante, at 611. This case, however, involves a semiautomatic weapon that was readily convertible into a machinegun — a weapon that the jury found to be “ ‘a dangerous device of a type as would alert one to the likelihood of regulation.’” Ante, at 604. These are not guns “of some sort” that can be found in almost “50 percent of American homes.” Ante, at 613-614.1 They are particularly dangerous — indeed, a substantial percentage of the unregistered machineguns now in circulation are converted semiautomatic weapons.2

The question presented is whether the National Firearms Act imposed on the Government the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the defendant knew he possessed a dangerous device sufficient to alert him to *625regulation, but also that he knew it had all the characteristics of a “firearm” as defined in the statute. Three unambiguous guideposts direct us to the correct answer to that question: the text and structure of the Act, our cases construing both this Act and similar regulatory legislation, and the Act’s history and interpretation.

I

Contrary to the assertion by the Court, the text of the statute does provide “explicit guidance in this case.” Cf. ante, at 605. The relevant section of the Act makes it “unlawful for any person ... to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.” 26 U. S. C. § 5861(d). Significantly, the section contains no knowledge requirement, nor does it describe a common-law crime.

The common law generally did not condemn acts as criminal unless the actor had “an evil purpose or mental culpability,” Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 252 (1952), and was aware of all the facts that made the conduct unlawful, United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250, 251-252 (1922). In interpreting statutes that codified traditional common-law offenses, courts usually followed this rule, even when the text of the statute contained no such requirement. Ibid. Because the offense involved in this case is entirely a creature of statute, however, “the background rules of the common law,” cf. ante, at 605, do not require a particular construction, and critically different rules of construction apply. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S., at 252-260.

In Morissette, Justice Jackson outlined one such interpretive rule:

“Congressional silence as to mental elements in an Act merely adopting into federal statutory law a concept of crime already ... well defined in common law and statutory interpretation by the states may warrant quite contrary inferences than the same silence in creating an of*626fense new to general law, for whose definition the courts have no guidance except the Act.” Id., at 262.

Although the lack of an express knowledge requirement in § 5861(d) is not dispositive, see United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 438 (1978), its absence suggests that Congress did not intend to require proof that the defendant knew all of the facts that made his conduct illegal.3

The provision’s place in the overall statutory scheme, see Crandon v. United States, 494 U. S. 152, 158 (1990), confirms this intention. In 1934, when Congress originally enacted the statute, it limited the coverage of the 1934 Act to a relatively narrow category of weapons such as submachineguns and sawed-off shotguns — weapons characteristically used only by professional gangsters like A1 Capone, Pretty Boy Floyd, and their henchmen.4 At the time, the Act would have had little application to guns used by hunters or guns kept at home as protection against unwelcome intruders.5 *627Congress therefore could reasonably presume that a person found in possession of an unregistered machinegun or sawed-off shotgun intended to use it for criminal purposes. The statute as a whole, and particularly the decision to criminalize mere possession, reflected a legislative judgment that the likelihood of innocent possession of such an unregistered weapon was remote, and far less significant than the interest in depriving gangsters of their use.

In addition, at the time of enactment, this Court had already construed comparable provisions of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act not to require proof of knowledge of all the facts that constitute the proscribed offense. United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250 (1922).6 Indeed, Attorney General Cummings expressly advised Congress that the text of the gun control legislation deliberately followed the language of the Anti-Narcotic Act to reap the benefit of cases construing it.7 Given the reasoning of Balint, we properly may infer that Congress did not intend the Court to read a stricter knowledge requirement into the gun control legislation than we read into the Anti-Narcotic Act. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 698-699 (1979).

Like the 1934 Act, the current National Firearms Act is primarily a regulatory measure. The statute establishes *628taxation, registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for businesses and transactions involving statutorily defined firearms, and requires that each firearm be identified by a serial number. 26 U. S. C. §§5801-5802, 5811-5812, 5821-5822, 5842-5843. The Secretary of the Treasury must maintain a central registry that includes the names and addresses of persons in possession of all firearms not controlled by the Government. § 5841. Congress also prohibited certain acts and omissions, including the possession of an unregistered firearm.8 § 5861.

As the Court acknowledges, ante, at 607, to interpret statutory offenses such as § 5861(d), we look to “the nature of the statute and the particular character of the items regulated” to determine the level of knowledge required for conviction. An examination of § 5861(d) in light of our precedent dictates that the crime of possession of an unregistered machinegun is in a category of offenses described as “public welfare” crimes.9 Our decisions interpreting such offenses clearly require affirmance of petitioner’s conviction.

II

“Public welfare” offenses share certain characteristics: (1) they regulate “dangerous or deleterious devices or products *629or obnoxious waste materials,” see United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U. S. 558, 565 (1971); (2) they “heighten the duties of those in control of particular industries, trades, properties or activities that affect public health, safety or welfare,” Morissette, 342 U. S., at 254; and (3) they “depend on no mental element but consist only of forbidden acts or omissions,” id., at 252-253. Examples of such offenses include Congress’ exertion of its power to keep dangerous narcotics,10 hazardous substances,11 and impure and adulterated foods and drugs12 out of the channels of commerce.13

Public welfare statutes render criminal “a type of conduct that a reasonable person should know is subject to stringent public regulation and may seriously threaten the community’s health or safety.” Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419, 433 (1985). Thus, under such statutes, “a defendant can be convicted even though he was unaware of the circumstances of his conduct that made it illegal.” Id., at 443, n. 7 (White, J., dissenting). Referring to the strict criminal sanctions for unintended violations of the food and drug laws, Justice Frankfurter wrote:

“The purposes of this legislation thus touch phases of the lives and health of people which, in the circumstances of modern industrialism, are largely beyond self-protection. Regard for these purposes should in*630fuse construction of the legislation if it is to be treated as a working instrument of government and not merely as a collection of English words. The prosecution . . . is based on a now familiar type of legislation whereby penalties serve as effective means of regulation. Such legislation dispenses with the conventional requirement for criminal conduct — awareness of some wrongdoing. In the interest of the larger good it puts the burden of acting at hazard upon a person otherwise innocent but standing in responsible relation to a public danger.” United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 280-281 (1943) (citing United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250 (1922); other citations omitted).

The National Firearms Act unquestionably is a public welfare statute. United States v. Freed, 401 U. S. 601, 609 (1971) (holding that this statute “is a.regulatory measure in the interest of the public safety”). Congress fashioned a legislative scheme to regulate the commerce and possession of certain types of dangerous devices, including specific kinds of weapons, to protect the health and welfare of the citizenry. To enforce this scheme, Congress created criminal penalties for certain acts and omissions. The text of some of these offenses — including the one at issue here— contains no knowledge requirement.

The Court recognizes:

“[W]e have reasoned that as long as a defendant knows that he is dealing with a dangerous device of a character that places him ‘in responsible relation to a public danger/ Dotterweich, supra, at 281, he should be alerted to the probability of strict regulation, and we have assumed that in such cases Congress intended to place the burden on the defendant to ‘ascertain at his peril whether [his conduct] comes within the inhibition of the statute.’ Balint, 258 U. S., at 254.” Ante, at 607.

*631We thus have read a knowledge requirement into public welfare crimes, but not a requirement that the defendant know all the facts that make his conduct illegal. Although the Court acknowledges this standard, it nevertheless concludes that a gun is not the type of dangerous device that would alert one to the possibility of regulation.

Both the Court and Justice Ginsburg erroneously rely upon the “traditional]” innocence of gun ownership to find that Congress must have intended the Government to prove knowledge of all the characteristics that make a weapon a statutory “firear[m].” Ante, at 610-612; ante, at 621-622 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment). We held in Freed, however, that a § 5861(d) offense may be committed by one with no awareness of either wrongdoing or of all the facts that constitute the offense.14 401 U. S., at 607-610. Nevertheless, the Court, asserting that the Government “gloss[es] over the distinction between grenades and guns,” determines that “the gap between Freed and this case is too wide to bridge.” Ante, at 610. As such, the Court instead reaches the rather surprising conclusion that guns are more analogous to food stamps than to hand grenades.15 Even if *632one accepts that dubious proposition, the Court founds it upon a faulty premise: its mischaracterization of the Government’s submission as one contending that “all guns . . . are dangerous devices that put gun owners on notice . . . Ante, at 608 (emphasis added).16 Accurately identified, the Government’s position presents the question whether guns such as the one possessed by petitioner “ ‘are highly dangerous offensive weapons, no less dangerous than the narcotics’ ” in Balint or the hand grenades in Freed, see ante, at 609 (quoting Freed, 401 U. S., at 609).17

*633Thus, even assuming that the Court is correct that the mere possession of an ordinary rifle or pistol does not entail sufficient danger to alert one to the possibility of regulation, that conclusion does not resolve this case. Petitioner knowingly possessed a semiautomatic weapon that was readily convertible into a machinegun. The “‘character and nature’ ” of such a weapon is sufficiently hazardous to place the possessor on notice of the possibility of regulation. See Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, ante, at 525 (citation omitted).18 No significant difference exists between *634imposing upon the possessor a duty to determine whether such a weapon is registered, Freed, 401 U. S., at 607-610, and imposing a duty to determine whether that weapon has been converted into a machinegun.

Cases arise, of course, in which a defendant would not know that a device was dangerous unless he knew that it was a “firearm” as defined in the Act. Freed was such a case; unless the defendant knew that the device in question was a hand grenade, he would not necessarily have known that it was dangerous. But given the text and nature of the statute, it would be utterly implausible to suggest that Congress intended the owner of a sawed-off shotgun to be criminally liable if he knew its barrel was 17.5 inches long but not if he mistakenly believed the same gun had an 18-inch barrel. Yet the Court’s holding today assumes that Congress intended that bizarre result.

The enforcement of public welfare offenses always entails some possibility of injustice. Congress nevertheless has repeatedly decided that an overriding public interest in health or safety may outweigh that risk when a person is dealing with products that are sufficiently dangerous or deleterious to make it reasonable to presume that he either knows, or should know, whether those products conform to special regulatory requirements. The dangerous character of the product is reasonably presumed to provide sufficient notice of the probability of regulation to justify strict enforcement against those who are merely guilty of negligent, rather than willful, misconduct.

The National Firearms Act is within the category of public welfare statutes enacted by Congress to regulate highly dangerous items. The Government submits that a conviction under such a statute may be supported by proof that the *635defendant “knew the item at issue was highly dangerous and of a type likely to be subject to regulation.” Brief for United States 9.19 It is undisputed that the evidence in this case met that standard. Nevertheless, neither Justice Thomas for the Court nor Justice Ginsburg has explained why such a knowledge requirement is unfaithful to our cases or to the text of the Act.20 Instead, following the approach of their decision in United States v. Harris, 959 F. 2d 246, 260-261 (CADC) (per curiam), cert. denied sub nom. Smith v. United States, 506 U. S. 932 (1992), they have simply explained why, in their judgment, it would be unfair to punish the possessor of this machinegun.

Ill

The history and interpretation of the National Firearms Act supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend to *636require knowledge of all the facts that constitute the offense of possession of an unregistered weapon. During the first 30 years of enforcement of the 1934 Act, consistent with the absence of a knowledge requirement and with the reasoning in Balint, courts uniformly construed it not to require knowledge of all the characteristics of the weapon that brought it within the statute. In a case decided in 1963, then-judge Blackmun reviewed the earlier cases and concluded that the defendant’s knowledge that he possessed a gun was “all the scienter which the statute requires.” Sipes v. United States, 321 F. 2d 174, 179 (CA8), cert. denied, 375 U. S. 913 (1963).

Congress subsequently amended the statute twice, once in 1968 and again in 1986. Both amendments added knowledge requirements to other portions of the Act,21 but neither the text nor the history of either amendment discloses an intent to add any other knowledge requirement to the possession of an unregistered firearm offense. Given that, with only one partial exception,22 every federal tribunal to address the question had concluded that proof of knowledge of all the facts constituting a violation was not required for a convic*637tion under § 5861(d),23 we may infer that Congress intended that interpretation to survive. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580 (1978).

In short, petitioner’s knowledge that he possessed an item that was sufficiently dangerous to alert him to the likelihood of regulation would have supported a conviction during the first half century of enforcement of this statute. Unless application of that standard to a particular case violates the Due Process Clause,24 it is the responsibility of Congress, not this Court, to amend the statute if Congress deems it unfair or unduly strict.

IV

On the premise that the purpose of the mens rea requirement is to avoid punishing people “for apparently innocent activity,” Justice Ginsburg concludes that proof of knowledge that a weapon is “‘a dangerous device of a type as would alert one to the likelihood of regulation’” is not an adequate mens rea requirement, but that proof of knowledge that the weapon possesses “ ‘every last characteristic’ ” that subjects it to regulation is. Ante, at 622-623, and n. 5 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting the trial court’s jury instruction).

*638Assuming that “innocent activity” describes conduct without any consciousness of wrongdoing, the risk of punishing such activity can be avoided only by reading into the statute the common-law concept of mens rea: “an evil purpose or mental culpability.” Morissette, 342 U. S., at 252.25 But even petitioner does not contend that the Government must prove guilty intent or intentional wrongdoing. Instead, the “mens rea” issue in this case is simply what knowledge requirement, if any, Congress implicitly included in this offense. There are at least five such possible knowledge requirements, four of which entail the risk that a completely innocent mistake will subject a defendant to punishment.

First, a defendant may know that he possesses a weapon with all of the characteristics that make it a “firearm” within the meaning of the statute and also know that it has never been registered, but be ignorant of the federal registration requirement. In such a case, we presume knowledge of the law even if we know the defendant is “innocent” in the sense that Justice Ginsburg uses the word. Second, a defendant may know that he possesses a weapon with all of the characteristics of a statutory firearm and also know that the law requires that it be registered, but mistakenly believe that it is in fact registered. Freed squarely holds that this defendant’s “innocence” is not a defense. Third, a defendant *639may know only that he possesses a weapon with all of the characteristics of a statutory firearm. Neither ignorance of the registration requirement nor ignorance of the fact that the weapon is unregistered protects this “innocent” defendant. Fourth, a defendant may know that he possesses a weapon that is sufficiently dangerous to likely be regulated, but not know that it has all the characteristics of a statutory firearm. Petitioner asserts that he is an example of this “innocent” defendant. Fifth, a defendant may know that he possesses an ordinary gun and, being aware of the widespread lawful gun ownership in the country, reasonably assume that there is no need “to inquire about the need for registration.” Ante, at 622 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment). That, of course, is not this case. See swpra, at 624, and n. I.26

Justice Ginsburg treats the first, second, and third alternatives differently from the fourth and fifth. Her acceptance of knowledge of the characteristics of a statutory “firearm” as a sufficient predicate for criminal liability — despite ignorance of either the duty to register or the fact of nonregistration, or both — must rest on the premise that such knowledge would alert the owner to the likelihood of regulation, thereby depriving the conduct of its “apparen[t] innocen[ce].” Yet in the fourth alternative, a jury determines just such knowledge: that the characteristics of the weapon known to the defendant would alert the owner to the likelihood of regulation.

In short, Justice Ginsburg’s reliance on “the purpose of the mens rea requirement — to shield people against punishment for apparently innocent activity,” ante, at 622, neither explains why ignorance of certain facts is a defense although *640ignorance of others is not, nor justifies her disagreement with the jury’s finding that this defendant knew facts that should have caused him to inquire about the need for registration.27

V

This case presents no dispute about the dangerous character of machineguns and sawed-off shotguns. Anyone in possession of such a weapon is “standing in responsible relation to a public danger.” See Dotterweich, 320 U. S., at 281 (citation omitted). In the National Firearms Act, Congress determined that the serious threat to health and safety posed by the private ownership of such firearms warranted the imposition of a duty on the owners of dangerous weapons to determine whether their possession is lawful. Semiautomatic weapons that are readily convertible into machineguns are sufficiently dangerous to alert persons who knowingly possess them to the probability of stringent public regulation. The jury’s finding that petitioner knowingly possessed “a dangerous device of a type as would alert one to the likelihood of regulation” adequately supports the conviction.

Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:

Seven of the so-called “D.C. Nine” bring this joint appeal from convictions arising out of their unconsented entry into the Washington offices of the Dow Chemical Company, and their destruction *80of certain property therein. Appellants,1 along with two other defendants who subsequently entered pleas of nolo contendere,2 were tried before District Judge John H. Pratt and a jury on a three count indictment alleging, as to each defendant, one count of second degree burglary, 22 D.C.Code § 1801(b), and two counts of malicious destruction of property valued in excess of $100, 22 D.C.Code § 403. On February 11, 1970, after a six-day trial, the seven were each convicted of two counts of malicious destruction. The jury acquitted on the burglary charges but convicted on the lesser-included offense of unlawful entry. The sentences imposed are set forth in the margin.3

Appellants urge three grounds for reversal as follows: (1) The trial judge erred in denying defendants’ timely motions to dispense with counsel and represent themselves. (2) The judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury of its right to acquit appellants without regard to the law and the evidence, and refused to permit appellants to argue that issue to the jury. (3) The instructions actually given by the court coerced the jury into delivering a verdict of guilty. On the basis of defendants’ first contention we reverse and remand for new trial. To provide an appropriate mandate governing the new trial, we consider the second and third contentions, and conclude that these cannot be accepted.

I. The Record in District Court

The undisputed evidence showed that on Saturday, March 22, 1969, appellants broke into the locked fourth floor Dow offices at 1030 - 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., threw papers and documents about the office and into the street below, vandalized office furniture and equipment, and defaced the premises by spilling about a bloodlike substance. The prosecution proved its case through Dow employees who testified as to the lack of permission and extent of damage, members of the news media who had been summoned to the scene by the appellants and who witnessed the destruction while recording it photographically, and police officers who arrested appellants on the scene.

Initially, the court appointed separate counsel for each defendant. Following their arraignment on June 20, 1969, all save appellant Robert Begin elected interim joint representation by Philip Hirschkop, Addison Bowman and Caroline Nickerson. Mr. Begin was represented by Edward Bennett Williams. All attorneys were court-appointed.

At the pre-trial conference held on January 29, 1970, in his chambers, Judge Pratt indicated he had received a letter from Mr. Hirschkop to the effect that appellants Jo Ann Malone, Arthur Melville, and Joseph O’Rourke no longer wished to be represented by counsel. On his own behalf, appellant Begin had written the Court requesting that the appointment of Mr. Williams be terminated, and that he be permitted a pro se defense. Judge Pratt deferred a ruling on the pro se motions in order to give the matter further consideration, observing that to waive counsel

is not quite as easy as merely getting up and saying that you want to represent yourself. You’ve got the matter of the waiver being knowing and intelligent, and we are going to take testimony on that; and furthermore, the possibility of prejudice, not only *81to themselves but also to their co-defendants. (Tr. 3)

Later in the conference he indicated how important he felt the lawyer’s role was likely to be in achieving tranquility at trial:

[L]et me emphasize as strongly as I can that the way this case is handled is presumably my responsibility, but the decorum in the courtroom — I’m talking particularly about the defendants themselves — will be affected to a great degree by the advice and example that they get from their own lawyers. (Tr. 14).

The day before, it seems, Judge Pratt had attended a seminar on the problems of disruption encountered in multi-defendant trials, and he was concerned that “there have been rumors that maybe some disruptive tactics are going to be employed.” (Tr. 15, 174). Defense counsel assured him that they knew of no such rumors and that they anticipated no disruptive behavior. In any event, Judge Pratt scheduled a hearing for February 3, 1970, on the four defendants’ requests as a matter preliminary to the trial.

At a “supplementary” conference the next day, January 30, the Judge acceded to Mr. Williams’s request that his associate, William McDaniels, be substituted as Begin’s counsel of record. Mr. Williams’s request stemmed from statements of emphatic, indeed vitriolic, dissatisfaction with Mr. Williams’s representation contained in Begin’s motion for a pro se defense.

At the February 3, 1970, hearing on the pro se motions, the four original movants were joined by appellant Dougherty. For approximately three-quarters of an hour the court heard from the five defendants and from their lawyers. The judge showed particular interest in the defendants’ education, and specifically whether any of the five had had formal legal training. None had, although appellant Begin asserted he had “taken pains to familiarize (himself) with courtroom procedure.” In general, the testimony showed that the five movants were quite articulate and highly educated. It also appeared that all five movants — indeed all defendants save appellant Slaski — were associated with a religious order, either at that time or in the recent past and, in varying degrees, had been active in work among the poor and underprivileged, in this country and in Latin America.

After a brief recess, the court denied defendants’ motions in an oral opinion, set forth in the margin.5 The judge in*82dicated that he was not troubled by defendants’ general educational background, nor, importantly, by their motivation. However, he emphasized their lack of formal legal training, the multidefendant context of the trial, and the seriousness of the charges. The interplay of those factors he felt created too great a risk of disruption of the trial, and risk of jury prejudice against movants and their co-defendants. After the judge delivered his ruling, there was some confused interchange between the court, counsel and several defendants. At Mr. Hirschkop’s request, court was recessed in order that counsel and defendants could determine how to proceed in light of the judge’s ruling.

When court reconvened after lunch, all defendants were present and a panel of prospective jurors sat in the rear of the courtroom. At that time the remaining four defendants, Catherine Melville, Dennis Moloney, Michael Slaski and Bernard Meyer, made oral motions to represent themselves. These new motions were prompted in large part by the judge's earlier emphasis on prejudice to co-defendants with counsel as a ground for denying the original motions. After some discussion between the court and the defendants, out of the presence of the veniremen, the judge, treating the four new motions as timely made, formally denied them for the reasons given in his oral opinion.

Some collateral matters were then disposed of, including a request — denied—• by Mr. Hirschkop that Judge Pratt disqualify himself. When the court began its voir dire examination of prospective jurors, there was some dispute about the judge’s decision to question the jurors himself rather than to follow the procedure of examination by counsel, but appellants do not bring that issue into this appeal. Similarly, appellants do not complain of the presence or absence of certain questions for the prospective jurors, about which there was controversy at the time.

Selection of the jury was reasonably rapid, requiring only a part of the afternoon of Feb. 3 and part of the next morning. As noted, the court conducted the voir dire. Defendants were, however, permitted to exercise their peremptory challenges in propria, persona.

The trial formally began on the afternoon of February 4. Judge Pratt required that motions, objections, and examination of witnesses be made through counsel. He did, however, agree to permit each defendant to make a five minute opening statement and to testify, in narrative form, at reasonable length without a specific time limit. After the prosecution’s opening statement, Mr. Hirschkop made a brief statement on behalf of all defendants. Then five of the defendants — including appellants *83Dougherty, Begin and Arthur Melville— made opening statements.

The prosecution’s case was completed by the end of the next day, February 5. Prior to the opening of the defense case, defendants Catherine Melville and Bernard Meyer entered pleas of nolo contendere to one count of malicious destruction of property; the remaining charges were dismissed; and they are not before us on this appeal.

On Friday, February 6, after an opening statement by Mr. Bowman, appellants O’Rourke and Malone made opening statements on their own behalf, as the other defendants had done prior to the Government’s case. They directed their remarks, as had the others, to an attack on the role of Dow Chemical Company and other unspecified corporations in supporting American military efforts in the Vietnam War. When Sister Malone referred to Vietnam, Judge Pratt interjected: “the war in Vietnam is not an issue in this case.” A disruption ensued. Events happened too quickly for the court reporter to provide a complete record. The court later inserted this description of what happened, Supplement to Transcript, p. 595:

The record being unclear as to what transpired in the courtroom shortly before the Court adjourned Friday, February 6, 1970, the following is a recital of those events.

Defendant Jo Ann Malone, while making her opening statement, referred to the Vietnam War. (T. 594) The Court ruled that “the War in Vietnam is not an issue in this case.” (T. 594) Defendant Arthur Melville rose to object and was ordered by the Court to be seated. Defendant Michael Slaski also objected and when he failed to obey the Court’s order to be seated, the Marshals were ordered to seat him. (T. 595) While this was taking place, two spectators in the rear of the courtroom then stood and shouted to the bench concerning the relevancy of the War in the case on trial. Marshals moved to eject these two persons. The first was removed without inci.dent. While the second was being ejected with some difficulty, a woman member of the DC-Nine Defense Committee seated in the front row in back of the defendants rose and ran to the back of the courtroom to impede the Marshals and assist the two spectators being removed. When the Marshals resisted her, she screamed at them. Defendant Michael Slaski then wrestled free from the Marshals who were attempting to seat him, hurdled the rail and engaged in an altercation with the Marshals at the rear of the courtroom. During these events the jury was ushered from the courtroom. The Court ordered the courtroom cleared and took a recess. It is reported that the fighting involving defendant Slaski ceased after two or three minutes and the Marshals began clearing the courtroom amid shouts of “pigs” and obscenities. Loud shouting occurred during the entire incident. A number of spectators refused to leave the courtroom and had to be ejected forcibly. The Court returned after the courtroom had been cleared and the press, counsel and the defendants had been readmitted. The jury was recalled, admonished to disregard what it had seen, and sent home. The Court then adjourned until Monday, February 9, 1970.

When the trial resumed on Monday, February 9, defendant Slaski was cited for contempt for his role in the disturbances and the judge sternly admonished the spectators and remaining defendants against further outbreaks. Appellants Slaski and Moloney did not make opening statements. After appellant Malone finished her statement, the case for the defense began. It consisted entirely of defendants’ testimony. Appellants Arthur Melville, O’Rourke, Malone and Begin testified. During the testimony there were several further disruptions requiring a brief recess at one point and ejection of a spectator from the court*84room at another.6 The judge confined closing argument to counsel. He instructed the jury on the three counts of each indictment as well as on the lesser-induded offense of unlawful entry under the burglary count. He refused to instruct the jury that it could disregard the law as he gave it to them, and refused to instruct the jury that “moral compulsion” or “choice of the lesser evil” constituted a legal defense.

II. The Right of Pro Se Representation

In defendants’ view, Judge Pratt violated their constitutional and statutory rights when he refused to permit them to represent themselves. They say the right to dispense with counsel is correlative to the guarantee of the right to counsel and is therefore “implicit” in the Sixth Amendment. They rely as well on 28 U.S.C. § 1654 which provides:

In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.

The Government responds that a defendant’s right to represent himself is not protected by the Sixth Amendment but only exists by virtue of § 1654, and that this is significant (a) because statutory rights are generally subject to the “harmless error” principle, and (b) § 1654 rights can be limited when, in the judge’s view, they would be likely to lead to disruption of the trial or threaten to interfere with effective presentation of the defendant’s case.

A. Absence of Controlling Precedent on Source of Pro Se Right

The Supreme Court has never directly determined whether the Constitution guarantees the pro se right. Appellants rely on Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236, 242, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942) where the Court observed:

[t]he right to assistance of counsel and the correlative right to dispense with a lawyer’s help are not legal formalisms. They rest on considerations that go to the substance of an accused’s position before the law. . . [T]he Constitution does not force a lawyer upon a defendant. He may waive his Constitutional right to assistance of counsel if he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.

However, Adams’s “correlative right” language was not an essential ingredient of its holding, which was simply that a defendant who has intelligently waived his right to counsel may also waive his right to a jury trial. Moreover, in Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 85 S.Ct. 783, 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965), holding a defendant’s waiver of right to a jury trial subject to the assent of the prosecution and the trial judge, the Court said that “the ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist on the opposite of that right.” 380 U.S. at 34-35, 85 S.Ct. at 789. It pointed out that

[t]he Constitution recognizes an adversary system as the proper method of determining guilt, and the Government, as a litigant, has a legitimate interest in seeing that cases in which it believes a conviction is warranted are tried before the tribunal which the Constitution regards as most likely to produce a fair result. Id. at 36, 85 S.Ct. at 790.7

*85There are conflicting indications from the circuits. The Second Circuit in United States v. Plattner, 330 F.2d 271 (2d Cir. 1964), recognized constitutional status for the pro se right. In accord with Plattner, see Lowe v. United States, 418 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1048, 90 S.Ct. 1378, 25 L.Ed.2d 660 (1970); United States v. Warner, 428 F.2d 730 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 930, 91 S.Ct. 194, 27 L.Ed.2d 191 (1971); United States v. Pike, 439 F.2d 695 (9th Cir. 1971); Hodge v. United States, 414 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1969). But compare Juelich v. United States, 342 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1965); Van Nattan v. United States, 357 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1966).

In our court, Brown v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 264 F.2d 363 (en banc 1959), left the issue unresolved. Reversal was sought because the trial judge failed to instruct a defendant of his right to represent himself when his court-appointed attorney informed the court that defendant was dissatisfied with the attorney’s pessimism about the outcome of the case. There was no opinion for a majority of the court. Judge Miller, joined by Judges Prettyman, Danaher and Bastían, stated that the pro se right is statutory only, and therefore (a) defendant must assert the right in order to be entitled to it and (b) in any event no reversal was required since no prejudice could be discerned.

The opinions of the other five judges are consistent with a view that the Constitution is the basis for the right, although only one expressly discussed its source. Judge Burger, concurring in part, differed with the others voting to affirm because he treated defendant’s expression of “dissatisfaction” as the equivalent of a request for removal of counsel, but held it within the court’s discretion to deny the request so long as it was sufficiently apprised of the cause of the “dissatisfaction.”

The four dissenters joined in an opinion stating that the reasons for the “dissatisfaction” were not made sufficiently clear to the court to permit the exercise of its informed discretion on the matter, and hence the judge should have inquired further into the basis for defendant’s attitude and should have specifically informed defendant of his right to proceed alone. The pro se alternative, they felt, is one of fundamental importance, and a defendant can make an informed decision on how best to conduct his defense only if he is made aware that he is free to dispense with counsel. The principal dissent, however, made no mention of the Constitution. Only Judge Bazelon, in a separate dissent, said the pro se right was grounded in the Constitution.

B. Need for Recognition of Statutory Right — If Timely Asserted, Not Waived, And Accompanied by Waiver of Right to Counsel

The Government says the pro se right is statutory and subject to “extensive qualifications,” discerning in the decisions seven “factors” on the basis of which the pro se right may be partially or entirely denied.8

This case does not require final resolution of the constitutional question. That would be unavoidable had Congress attempted to narrow or qualify the pro se right along the lines advocated by the Government on this appeal. But that is not the case. The right of pro se representation was enacted by our very first Congress. The language declaring the pro se right is not qualified, see 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The statute was passed in a context of colonial tribunals largely manned by laymen, and of pioneer modes of thought emphasizing the *86virtues of common sense and self-reliance.9 Its constitutional aura is underscored by the proposal the very next day of the Sixth Amendment.10

In sum, whether or not the right of pro se representation has a constitutional foundation it is patently a statutory right, see § 1654; this right was not only conferred by Congress in 1789 but has wide reverberation in organic state law11 and was recognized by Congress as a fundamental right. We conclude that this right must be recognized if it is timely asserted, and accompanied by a valid waiver of counsel, and if it is not itself waived, either expressly, or constructively, as by disruptive behavior during trial.12

The precedents relied on by the Government as subjecting the pro se right to “extensive qualifications” do no more than establish these basic elements : timely assertion; need for intelligent waiver of counsel; and possibility of waiver of the pro se right. A number of eases involved the special circumstance of defendants whose mental capacity was impaired.13 The bulk of *87the cases cited to us involved requests made after commencement of trial,14 and do no more than apply the recognized principle that the fundamental right to conduct the ease pro se is one that must be claimed timely, before the trial begins. Just as a defendant who has unrestricted right to retain counsel of his own choosing must seek permission of the court once his choice has been made, to select a different retained counsel, and is subject to the sound discretion of the court when he seeks to make a change after his trial has commenced, so a defendant must obtain the court’s permission when he seeks to make a change in order to select himself as counsel.

When the pro se right is claimed after trial has begun, the court exercises its discretion. It may weigh the inconvenience threatened by defendant's belated request against the possible prejudice from denial of defendant’s request. In exercising discretion the judge may take into account the circumstances at the time, whether there has been prior disruptive behavior by defendant, whether the trial is in an advanced stage, etc. E. g., Seale v. Hoffman, supra, note 14; United States v. Foster, 9 F.R.D. 367 (S.D.N.Y.1949). The right to self-representation, though asserted before trial, can be lost by disruptive behavior during trial, constituting constructive waiver. But that is a far different situation from that presented by the instant case, where appellants unequivocally claimed the right to represent themselves, see Brown v. United States, supra, 105 U.S.App.D.C. at 81, 264 F.2d at 367 (Burger, J.), United States ex rel. Higgins v. Fay, 364 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1966), well in advance of the beginning of trial and selection of the jury, see United States ex rel. Maldonado v. Denno, 348 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1965); cf. United States v. Thomas, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 308, 450 F.2d 1355 (1971).

C. “Possible” Disruption as a Basis for Denying Pro Se Defense

The Government seeks to sustain the denial of appellants’ pro se motions on a theory of “possible disruption.” A list of five factors is offered15 which, it is said, “taken together” support the judge's finding of risk of disruption.

Given the general likelihood that pro se defendants have only rudimentary acquaintanceship with the rules of evidence and courtroom protocol, a measure of unorthodoxy, confusion and delay is likely, perhaps inevitable, in pro se cases.16 The energy and time toll on the *88trial judge, as fairness calls him to articulate ground rules and reasons that need not be explained to an experienced trial counsel, can be relieved, at least in part, by appointment of an amicus curiae to assist the defendant.17 If defendant refrains from intentionally obstructive tactics, amicus would be available to provide advice on procedure and strategy. The utility of an amicus appointment is dependent on explanation to and cooperation by defendant, and on understanding, too, that he may claim with some merit that his pro se rights include his right to appear before the jury in the status of one defending himself, and that this is defeated if a too conspicuous role is played by an attorney, unless it clearly appears to the jury that he does not have the status of defense counsel.18

On the other hand, a potentially unruly defendant may and should be clearly forewarned that deliberate dilatory or obstructive behavior may operate in effect as a waiver of his pro se rights and, in that event, amicus will be ready to assume exclusive control of the defense.19 The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that even constitutional litigation prerogatives of a defendant are available to give choice in the conduct of a trial, and do not extend so far as to permit subversion of the core concept of a trial. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). The same principle means that obstreperous behavior may constitute waiver of the pro se right.20

Appointment of amicus counsel would not have resolved all the problems pre*89sented by pro se defenses in the multidefendant context involved in this case. Thus, the prospect of repetitious interrogation of witnesses would persist. But the joint trial that the prosecution seeks in the interest of efficiency cannot set aside the fundamental right of pro se representation. The trial judge must proceed by skill and suasion, by obtaining defendants’ cooperation, not by denying their pro se rights.

We need not 'here consider whether or in what circumstances withholding of reasonable cooperation may be held equivalent to unruly action as a waiver of the right of self-representation. In the case before us, defendants and counsel assured the court, on several occasions, of their lack of disruptive intent, e. g., Tr. 23, 24. The judge in his oral opinion noted that his fears of disruption did not stem from concern over defendants’ “motivations.” Furthermore, the record shows how reasonable cooperation was obtained from defendants, by a reasonable accommodation of interests. When defendants expressed concern over their exclusion from bench conferences, Judge Pratt made, and defendants accepted (Tr. 333-335), a suggestion permitting a “representative” defendant to participate in bench conferences as an observer. A similar approach might have obviated any serious problems of repetitious interrogation.21 In the last analysis, however, if the assertion of a pro se right makes a multidefendant trial unmanageable, or unfair to the other defendants, the remedy lies in severance. Rule 14, F.R.Crim.P.

In effect the unqualified right of self representation rests on an implied presumption that the court will be able to achieve reasonable cooperation. The possibility that reasonable cooperation may be withheld, and the right later waived, is not a reason for denying the right of self representation at the start.

D. Lack of Foundation for Government Claims of Prior Disruptive Behavior

The Government argues that in this case there was disruptive behavior on the part of defendants which sustains the judge’s denial of pro se representation. We assume, without deciding, that where there has been experience with the particular defendants that is plainly identifiable as disruptive in character, such as to overturn the premise of reasonable cooperation, and permit a finding of anticipatory breach and waiver, that would be a predicate for denying the pro se right. We do not think any such predicate appears in this case.

We begin by rejecting the Government’s approach of using “disruptive” incidents following the denial of the pro se motions as reasons to support that denial.22 This is like using the fruit of an unreasonable search to provide a cause making the search reasonable. Nearly all of the incidents cited by the Government concerned assertions of the right to self-representation. It would be anomalous to hold that the denial of one’s rights can be justified by reference to the nature of subsequent complaints protesting that denial.

As to defendants’ actions prior to the denial of their pro se requests, these *90were not the kind of “disruptive” actions that warranted denial on that basis alone. We are aware of the occasions prior to the pro se ruling when defendants interrupted the pre-trial hearing without obtaining the court’s prior leave. However, most of the interruptions stemmed from defendants’ confusion over the exclusion of the public from the pre-trial hearing, a matter that had been arranged at the pre-trial conference in which defendants had not participated, and which was subject to reasonably prompt clarification without repetition.

Thus, during Sister Malone’s testimony, in which she inquired of the court the reasons for the exclusion of the public, appellant Dougherty interrupted to observe that he thought the courtroom was large enough to accommodate the people who could be expected to attend. This followed by moments an “interruption” by Mr. O’Rourke to make a request, joined in by Sister Malone, that two of their relatives be permitted to observe the progress of the hearing— a request that the court granted.

None of the incidents can be characterized as “disruptive” in the sense of evincing defendants’ intent to upset or unreasonably delay the hearing. Indeed to some extent the defendants, not trained in courtroom decorum, had reason to suppose their behavior was within proper bounds. At the hearing and during the early trial, Judge Pratt not only took considerable care to explain his ruling on the pro se motions, but also permitted the defendants to participate personally in jury selection. The record also shows that Judge Pratt engaged defendants in colloquies on various matters directly rather than through counsel. We do not disapprove, we rather commend, Judge Pratt’s willingness to handle this case with some flexibility. The Supreme Court has emphasized that one of the most important functions of criminal trials is, within reason, to make plain to defendants and society at large that justice is done in our courts,23 and Judge Pratt’s approach likely had that effect in this case. But the latitude previously granted to appellants must be taken into account in appraising whether their later requests manifest disruptive conduct.24 We cannot agree their pre-ruling behavior can be considered as so “disruptive” as to constitute a constructive, anticipatory waiver of a fundamental right.

E. Application of the Doctrine of Harmless Error

The Government finally contends that, assuming arguendo error in the denial of pro se defense, reversal as inappropriate because no prejudice resulted. We may assume, without deciding, that the harmless error doctrine — either in its ordinary formulation, or the more refined “harmless constitutional error” version25 — applies even in cases involving denial of a fundamental statutory right approximating or equalling the rights expressly stated in the Constitution. But we do not think it applicable to this case.

The principal characteristic of “harmless error” doctrine is its “result-orientation.” Its normal operation is in cases where the challenged error concerns *91a right given the defendant in order to permit his defense to operate at maximum competence26 or to insulate him from the effects of suspect evidence.27 In such cases there is reason to consider whether claimed error is harmless because it plainly did not affect the result adversely to defendant, for then the reason for the right lapses.

Courts have recognized a measure of result-orientation in the right of pro se representation. The Second Circuit, for example, perceives a basis for the pro se right in the need not to force a defendant to accept a lawyer in whom he has little confidence. Without such confidence, lawyer-client communication is likely to be unsatisfactory and “defendant may be better off representing himself,” United States ex rel. Maldonado v. Denno, supra, 348 F.2d at 15.

However, a salient aspect of the pro se right, in our view, is directed to considerations distinct from the objective of achieving what would be the best result in the litigation from a lawyer’s point of view. As the Supreme Court said in Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, supra, 317 U.S. at 279, 63 S.Ct. at 241, the “right to dispense with a lawyer’s help .... rest[s] on considerations that go to the substance of an accused’s position before the law.” It is designed to safeguard the dignity and autonomy of those whose circumstances or activities have thrust them involuntarily into the criminal process. An accused has a fundamental right to confront his accusers and his “country,” to present himself and his position to the jury not merely as a witness or through a “mouthpiece,” but as a man on trial who elects to plead his own cause. He is not obliged to seek what counsel would record as a victory but what he sees as tantamount to condemnation or doubt rather than vindication. A defendant has the moral right to stand alone in his hour of trial. The denial of that right is not to be redeemed through the prior estimate of someone else that the practical position of the defendant will be enhanced through representation by another, or the subsequent conclusion that defendant’s practical position has not been disadvantaged.

In guaranteeing counsel for the accused, the Sixth Amendment conferred a right for the benefit of the accused. As implemented by Congress, this right is not an imperative requirement that may be thrust upon him when in his judgment, as a person without impaired mental capacity, it is against his interest. Even if the defendant will likely lose the case anyway, he has the right — as he suffers whatever consequences there may be — to the knowledge that it was the claim that he put forward that was considered and rejected, and to the knowledge that in our free society, devoted to the ideal of individual worth, he was not deprived of his free will to make his own choice, in his hour of trial, to handle his own case.28

In the case at bar defendants believed they would be vindicated by their peers by presenting their positions without law-trained counsel as intermediary. They may or may not be right about the relative effectiveness of a lawyer’s presentation of their case. Ordinarily repre*92sentation by an attorney has structure and clarity that enables a jury to better understand defendants’ positions. Presentation of a case pro se will often be artless and confusing. Yet the normal disadvantage of confusion may be offset by the enhanced intensity and appearance of greater sincerity of a defendant’s presentation.29

While we cannot apply the doctrine of “harmless error” in case of denial of right of pro se representation on the ground that this would likely have resulted in the same verdict as counseled representation, a different question arises as to whether the overall format of the trial was such, in terms of the latitude given to the defendants, that they in effect had the substance though not the form of pro se representation.

This is a closer question, for as we have noted the judge made a painstaking effort to take some account of defendants’ positions in the courtroom, and indeed gave permission to defendants to make brief opening statements and to testify informally in narrative fashion.

In the last analysis, the judge’s efforts did not suffice to 'dissipate the erroneous denial of pro se representation. The court’s indulgence of defendants undoubtedly appeared as exactly that, a matter of grace — as something “extra” given to them beyond their due rights — which undercuts the objective of preserving defendants’ personal autonomy and responsibility in the courtroom. The format provided by the judge allowed for brief opening statements by defendants not as representing themselves, as they had a right to appear, but as a supplement to the counsel appointed to represent them. The denial of the defendants’ right to make closing statements removed them from the place of responsibility at the climax of the trial— when they would be summing up their positions in a context of a summing up by prosecution counsel. Presentation of closing statements by the defendants was originally promised and then taken away because of their disruptions. But the vast bulk of the incidents cited in the Government’s brief as such disruptions- — 81 out of 89 — were essentially colloquies in which the defendants were asserting their pro se rights. And except for the eruption as to the Vietnam war “issue,” the other incidents were relatively minor in character. But the abiding difficulty remains — that one cannot fairly reason backward, from the conduct of a defendant at a trial where he was denied the right to represent himself, to what his conduct would have been if at the outset the trial judge recognized that right and at the same time clarified the responsibilities of representation.

In finding error because of the denial of the pro se right we are not unmindful of the fact that this trial presented Judge Pratt with difficult problems, and that in many respects his conduct of the trial reflected a commendable approach, a humane and flexible spirit that would have served, if the right of self-representation had been granted, to curb unwelcome consequences of that right.30 *93If it had not been for that threshold error, the trial would have had a different character. In view, however, of both the quality of, and limitations on, the permissions granted to defendants, we cannot say that the procedure followed was the equivalent of according the right of self-representation that was erroneously denied at the outset.

III. The Issue of Jury Nullification

Our reference to the “intensity” factor underlying the pro se right should not be understood as embracing the principle of “nullification” proffered by appellants. They say that the jury has a well-recognized prerogative to disregard the instructions of the court even as to matters of law, and that they accordingly have the legal right that the jury be informed of its power. We turn to this matter in order to define the nature of the new trial permitted by our mandate.

There has evolved in the Anglo-American system an undoubted jury prerogative-in-fact, derived from its power to bring in a general verdict of not guilty in a criminal case, that is not reversible by the court. The power of the courts to punish jurors for corrupt or incorrect verdicts, which persisted after the medieval system of attaint by another jury became obsolete, was repudiated in 1670 when Bushell’s Case, 124 Eng.Rep. 1006 (C.P. 1670) discharged the jurors who had acquitted William Penn of unlawful assembly. Juries in civil cases became subject to the control of ordering a new trial; no comparable control evolved for acquittals in criminal cases.

The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge. Most often commended are the 18th century acquittal of Peter Zenger of seditious libel, on the plea of Andrew Hamilton, and the 19th century acquittals in prosecutions under the fugitive slave law. The values involved drop a notch when the liberty vindicated by the verdict relates to the defendant’s shooting of his wife’s paramour, or purchase during Prohibition of alcoholic beverages.31

Even the notable Dean Pound commented in 1910 on positive aspects of “such jury lawlessness.”32 These observations of history and philosophy are underscored and illuminated, in terms of the current place of the jury in the American system of justice, by the empirical information and critical insights and analyses blended so felicitously in H. Kalven and H. Zeisel, The American Jury.33

*94Reflective opinions upholding the necessity for the jury as a protection against arbitrary action, such as prosecutorial abuse of power, stress fundamental features like the jury “common sense judgment” and assurance of “community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence.” 34 Human fraility *95being what it is, a prosecutor disposed by unworthy motives could likely establish some basis in fact for bringing charges against anyone he wants to book, but the jury system operates in fact, (see note 33) so that the jury will not convict when they empathize with the defendant, as when the offense is one they see themselves as likely to commit, or consider generally acceptable or condonable under the mores of the community.

The existence of an unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury, to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge, has for many years co-existed with legal practice and precedent upholding instructions to the jury that they are required to follow the instructions of the court on all matters of law. There were different soundings in colonial days and the early days of our Republic. We are aware of the number and variety of expressions at that time from respected sources — John Adams; Alexander Hamilton; prominent judges — that jurors had a duty to find a verdict according to their own conscience, though in opposition to the direction of the court; that their power signified a right; that they were judges both of law and of fact in a criminal case, and not bound by the opinion of the court.35

The rulings did not run all one way, but rather precipitated “a number of classic exchanges on the freedom and obligations of the criminal jury.”36 This was, indeed, one of the points of clash between the contending forces staking out the direction of the government of the newly established Republic, a direction resolved in political terms by reforming but sustaining the status of the courts, without radical change.37 As the distrust of judges appointed and removable by the king receded, there came increasing acceptance that under a republic the protection of citizens lay not in recognizing the right of each jury to make its own law, but in following democratic processes for changing the law.

The crucial legal ruling came in United States v. Battiste, 2 Sum. 240, Fed.Cas. No. 14,545 (C.C.D.Mass. 1835). Justice Story’s strong opinion supported the conception that the jury’s function lay in accepting the law given to it by the court and applying that law to the facts. This considered ruling of an influential jurist won increasing acceptance in the nation. The youthful passion for independence accommodated itself to the reality that the former rebels were now in control of their own destiny, that the practical needs of stability and sound growth outweighed the abstraction of centrifugal philosophy, and that the judges in the courts, were not the colonial appointees projecting royalist patronage and influence but were themselves part and parcel of the nation’s intellectual mainstream, subject to the checks of the common law tradition and professional opinion, and capable, in Roscoe Pound’s words, of providing “true judicial justice” standing in contrast with the colonial experience.38

*96The tide was turned by Battiste, but there were cross-currents. At mid-century the country was still influenced by the precepts of Jacksonian democracy, which spurred demands for direct selection of judges by the people through elections, and distrust of the judge-made common law which enhanced the movement for codification reform. But by the end of the century, even the most prominent state landmarks had been toppled ;39 and the Supreme Court settled the matter for the Federal courts in Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895) after exhaustive review in both majority and dissenting opinions. The jury’s role was respected as significant and wholesome, but it was not to be given instructions that articulated a right to do whatever it willed. The old rule survives today only as a singular relic.40

The breadth of the continuing prerogative of the jury, however, perseveres, as appears from the rulings permitting inconsistent verdicts. These reflect, in the words of Justice Holmes, an acknowledgment that “the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts,”41 or as Judge Learned Hand said: “We interpret the acquittal as no more than their assumption of a power which they had no right to exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity.” 42

Since the jury’s prerogative of lenity, again in Learned Hand’s words (supra,, note 34) introduces a “slack into the enforcement of law, tempering its rigor by the mollifying influence of current ethical conventions,” it is only just, say appellants, that the jurors be so told. It is unjust to withhold information on the jury power of “nullification,” since conscientious jurors may come, ironically, to abide by their oath as jurors to render verdicts offensive to their individual conscience, to defer to an assumption of necessity that is contrary to reality.

This so-called right of jury nullification is put forward in the name of liberty and democracy, but its explicit avowal risks the ultimate logic of anarchy. This is the concern voiced by Judge Sobeloff in United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1009 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 910, 90 S.Ct. 908, 25 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970):

To encourage individuals to make their own determinations as to which laws they will obey and which they *97will permit themselves as a matter of conscience to disobey is to invite chaos. No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable. Toleration of such conduct would not be democratic, as appellants claim, but inevitably anarchic.

The statement that avowal of the jury’s prerogative runs the risk of anarchy, represents, in all likelihood, the habit of thought of philosophy and logic, rather than the prediction of the social scientist. But if the statement contains an element of hyperbole, the existence of risk and danger, of significant magnitude, cannot be gainsaid. In contrast, the advocates of jury “nullification” apparently assume that the articulation of the jury’s power will not extend its use or extent, or will not do so significantly or obnoxiously. Can this assumption fairly be made? We know that a posted limit of 60 m.p.h. produces factual speeds 10 or even 15 miles greater, with an understanding all around that some “tolerance” is acceptable to the authorities, assuming conditions warrant. But can it be supposed that the speeds would stay substantially the same if the speed limit were put: Drive as fast as you think appropriate, without the posted .limit as an anchor, a point of departure ?

Our jury system is a resultant of many vectors, some explicit, and some rooted in tradition, continuity and general understanding without express formulation. A constitution may be meaningful though it is unwritten, as the British have proved for 900 years.

The jury system has worked out reasonably well overall, providing “play in the joints” that imparts flexibility and avoid undue rigidity. An equilibrium has evolved — an often marvelous balance — with the jury acting as a “safety valve” for exceptional cases, without being a wildcat or runaway institution. There is reason to believe that the simultaneous achievement of modest jury equity and avoidance of intolerable caprice depends on formal instructions that do not expressly delineate a jury charter to carve out its own rules of law.43 We have taken due and wry note that those whose writings44 acclaim and invoke Roscoe Pound’s 1910 recognition of the value of the jury as safety valve, omit mention of the fact that in the same article he referred to “the extreme decentralization that allows a local jury or even a local prosecutor to hold up instead of uphold the law of the state” as one of the conditions that “too often result in a legal paralysis of legal administration,” 45 that his writings of that period are expressly concerned with the evils of the “extravagant powers” of juries,46 and that in 1931 he joined the other distin*98guished members of the Wickersham Commission in this comment:47

In a number of jurisdictions juries are made judges of the law in criminal cases, thus inviting them to dispense with the rules of law instead of finding the facts. The juror is made judge of the law not to ascertain what it is, but to judge of its conformity to his personal ideals and ascertain its validity on that basis. . . . It is significant that there is most satisfaction with criminal juries in those jurisdictions which have interfered least with the conception of a trial of the facts unburdened with further responsibility and instructed as to the law and advised as to the facts by the judge.

The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is alteration in the way it is told to operate. The jury knows well enough that its prerogative is not limited to the choices articulated in the formal instructions of the court.48 The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from the judge. There is the informal communication from the total ■ culture — • literature (novel, drama, film, and television); current comment (newspapers, magazines and television); conversation; and, of course, history and tradition. The totality of input generally convey adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says. Even indicators that would on their face seem too weak to notice — like the fact that the judge tells the jury it must acquit (in case of reasonable doubt) but never tells the jury in so many words that it must convict- — are a meaningful part of the jury’s total input. Law is a system, and it is also a language, with secondary meanings that may be unrecorded yet are part of its life.

When the legal system relegates the information of the jury’s prerogative to an essentially informal input, it is not being duplicitous, chargeable with chicane and intent to deceive. The limitation to informal input is, rather a governor to avoid excess: the prerogative is reserved for the exceptional case, and the judge’s instruction is retained as a generally effective constraint. We “recognize a constraint as obligatory upon us when we require not merely reason to defend our rule departures, but damn good reason.”49 The practicalities of men, machinery and rules point up the danger of articulating discretion to depart from a rule, that the breach will be more often and casually invoked. We cannot gainsay that occasionally jurors uninstructed as to the prerogative may feel themselves compelled to the point of rigidity.50 The danger of the excess rigidity that may now occasionally exist is not as great as the danger of removing the boundaries of constraint provided by the announced rules.

We should also note the inter-relation of the unanimity requirement for petit juries, which was applicable to this trial, and is still the general rule though no longer constitutionally required for state courts.51 This is an additional reason— a material consideration, though neither a necessary nor sufficient condition— to brake the wheels of those who would tell the petit jurors they are to determine the rules of law, either directly or *99by telling them they are free to disregard the judge’s statement of the rules. The democratic principle would not be furthered, as proponents of jury nullification claim, it would be dis-served by investing in a jury that must be unanimous the function not merely of determining facts, hard enough for like-minded resolution, but of determining the rules of law.

Rules of law or justice involve choice of values and ordering of objectives for which unanimity is unlikely in any society, or group representing the society, especially a society as diverse in cultures and interests as ours. To seek unity out of diversity, under the national motto, there must be a procedure for decision by vote of a majority or prescribed plurality — in accordance with democratic philosophy. To assign the role of mini-legislature to the various petit juries, who must hang if not unanimous, exposes criminal law and administration to paralysis, and to a deadlock that betrays rather than furthers the assumptions of viable democracy.

Moreover, to compel a juror involuntarily assigned to jury duty to assume the burdens of mini-legislator or judge, as is implicit in the doctrine of nullification, is to put untoward strains on the jury system. It is one thing for a juror to know that the law condemns, but he has a factual power of lenity. To tell him expressly of a nullification prerogative, however, is to inform him, in effect, that it is he who fashions the rule that condemns. That is an overwhelming responsibility, an extreme burden for the jurors’ psyche. And it is not inappropriate to add that a juror called upon for an involuntary public service is entitled to the protection, when he takes action that he knows is right, but also knows is unpopular, either in the community at large or in his own particular grouping, that he can fairly put it .to friends and neighbors that he was merely following the instructions of the court.

In the last analysis, our rejection of the request for jury nullification doctrine is a recognition that there are times when logic is not the only or even best guide to sound conduct of government. For machines, one can indulge the person who likes to tinker in pursuit of fine tuning. When men and judicial machinery are involved, one must attend to the many and complex mechanisms and reasons that lead men to change their conduct — when they know they are being studied; when they are told of the consequences of their conduct; and when conduct exercised with restraint as an unwritten exception is expressly presented as a legitimate option.

What makes for health as an occasional medicine would be disastrous as a daily diet. The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury’s prerogative, and approval of its existence as a “necessary counter to casehardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors,” 52 does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power. On the contrary, it is pragmatically useful to structure instructions in such wise that the jury must feel strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it must itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience,53 and *100must independently initiate and undertake an act in contravention of the established instructions. This requirement of independent jury conception confines the happening of the lawless jury to the occasional instance that does not violate, and viewed as an exception may even enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law. An explicit instruction to a jury conveys an implied approval that runs the risk of degrading the legal structure requisite for true freedom, for an ordered liberty that protects against anarchy as well as tyranny.

Finally, we are aware that the denial of defendants’ request for a nullification instruction will be considered by them to negative some, or perhaps most, of the value of the right of pro se representation which we have recognized. This point could be answered in terms of logic: The right of self-representation is given for reasons recognized by the law, and cannot be a springboard to establish the validity of other advantages or conditions that lie in its tactical wake. Thus, a defendant’s ability to present his demeanor and often even a kind of testimony, without exposure to impeachment or cross-examination, may be a tactical consequence of pro se representation, and even a moving cause of its invocation, but this is not to say it is an objective of the law. But defendants’ position merits a more spacious answer, that lies outside the domain of formal logic. It is this. The jury system provides flexibility for the consideration of interests of justice outside the formal rules of law. This embraces whatever extra the defendant conveys by personal representation, whether through demeanor or sincerity of justification. But it is subject to the overriding consideration that what is tolerable or even desirable as an informal, self-initiated exception, harbors grave dangers to the system if it is opened to expansion and intensification through incorporation in the judge’s instruction.

IV. The Jury Instructions

Finally, defendants assert that one segment of the charge to the jury, set forth in the margin,54 was coercive, *101tantamount to a directed verdict of guilty, and outside the proper scope of a judicial instruction.

For the most part, defendants’ real complaint seems to be that the court stated the law applicable to the case. There is no contention — apart from the jury nullification claim, which we have rejected — that the charge was inaccurate as a statement of the applicable law. If a judge is to instruct the jury on the ultimate facts that are material under the law, he may properly advise the jury of what matters brought forward by defendants are not material under the applicable rule of law — as surely as he may charge that voluntary intoxication is no defense to a charge of second degree murder. Since it is the essence of the judicial function to declare the applicable law, it follows that the mere declaration of the law cannot be held outside the judicial function. This is tautological, but it is often the part of wisdom to be able to recognize which propositions are true tautologies. The jury were not told they must bring in a guilty verdict nor was there the kind of language or conduct, going beyond a declaration of the applicable law, that has in other cases 55 been held coercive, and an imroper departure from the role of the judge.

* -» *

The judgment must be reversed, for the reasons stated in part II of this opinion, and the case remanded for new trial, if the Government be so advised, in accordance with parts III and IV.

So ordered.

BAZELON, Chief Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the Court’s discussion of the statutory right of self-representation in criminal cases. In view of our holding that the statutory right is “unqualified,” our decision need not rest on the asserted constitutional right to proceed pro se. I emphasize, however, that my concurrence reflects no retreat from the position I expressed thirteen years *102ago in Brown v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 84, 264 F.2d 363, 370 (1959) (en banc) (dissenting opinion). I believed then, and I believe today, that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to act on his own behalf in resisting a criminal prosecution.

My disagreement with the Court concerns the issue of jury nullification. As the Court’s opinion clearly acknowledges, there can be no doubt that the jury has “an unreviewable and unreversible power * * * to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge * * Majority opinion at 1132. More important, the Court apparently concedes — although in somewhat grudging terms — that the power of nullification is a “necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors,” 1 and that exercise of the power may, in at least some instances, “enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law.” Id. at 1137. We could not withhold that concession without scoffing at the rationale that underlies the right to jury trial in criminal eases,2 and belittling some of the most legendary episodes in our political and jurisprudential history.3

The sticking point, however, is whether or not the jury should be told of its power to nullify the law in a particular case. Here, the trial judge not only denied a requested instruction on nullification, but also barred defense counsel from raising the issue in argument before the jury. The majority affirms that ruling. I see no justification for, and considerable harm in, this deliberate lack of candor.

At trial, the defendants made no effort to deny that they had committed the acts charged. Their defense was designed to persuade the jury that it would be unconscionable to convict them of violating a statute whose general validity and applicability they did not challenge. An instruction on nullification — or at least some argument to the jury on that issue — was, therefore, the linchpin of the defense.

At the outset it is important to recognize that the trial judge was not simply neutral on the question of nullification. His instruction, set out in part in the margin,4 emphatically denied the existence of a “legal defense” based on “sincere religious motives” or a belief that *103action was justified by “some higher law.” That charge was not directly inconsistent with the theory of jury nullification. Nullification is not a “defense” recognized by law, but rather a mechanism that permits a jury, as community conscience,5 to disregard the strict requirements of law where it finds that those requirements cannot justly be applied in a particular case. Yet the impact of the judge’s instruction, whatever his intention, was almost surely to discourage the jury from measuring the defendants’ action against community concepts of blameworthiness.

Thus, we are left with a doctrine that may “enhance the over-all normative effect of the rule of law,” but, at the same time, one that must not only be concealed from the jury, but also effectively condemned in the jury’s presence. Plainly, the justification for this sleight-of-hand lies in a fear that an occasionally noble doctrine will, if acknowledged, often be put to ignoble and abusive purposes — or, to borrow the Court’s phrase, will “run *104the risk of anarchy.” Majority opinion at 1134. A breakdown of the legal order is not a result I would knowingly encourage or enjoy. But the question cannot be resolved, at least at this stage of the argument, by asking if we are for or against anarchy, or if we are willing to tolerate a little less law and order so that we can permit a little more jury nullification. No matter how horrible the effect feared by the Court, the validity of its reasoning depends on the existence of a demonstrable connection between the alleged cause (a jury nullification instruction or argument to the jury on that issue) and that effect. I am unable to see a connection.

To be sure, there are abusive purposes, discussed below, to which the doctrine might be put. The Court assumes that these abuses are most likely to occur if the doctrine is formally described to the jury by argument or instruction. That assumption, it should be clear, does not rest on any proposition of logic. It is nothing more or less than a prediction of how jurors will react to the judge’s instruction or argument by counsel. And since we have no empirical data to measure the validity of the prediction, we must rely on our own rough judgments of its plausibility.

The Court reasons that a jury uninformed of its power to nullify will invoke that power only where it “feel[s] strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it [will] itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience * * Majority opinion at 1136. In other words, the spontaneous and unsolicited act of nullification is thought less likely, on the whole, to reflect bias and a perverse sense of values than the act of nullification carried out by a jury carefully instructed on its power and responsibility-

It seems substantially more plausible to me to assume that the very opposite is true. The juror motivated by prejudice seems to me more likely to make. spontaneous use of the power to nullify, and more likely to disregard the judge’s exposition of the normally controlling legal standards. The conscientious juror, who could make a careful effort to consider the blameworthiness of the defendant’s action in light of prevailing community values, is the one most likely to obey the judge’s admonition that the jury enforce strict principles of law.

Moreover, if it were true that nullification which arises out of ignorance is in some sense more worthy than nullification which arises out of knowledge, the Court would have to go much further. For under the Court’s assumption, the harm does not arise because a jury is told of its power to disregard the law, but because it knows of its power. Logically construed, the Court’s opinion would seem to require the disqualification at voir dire of any prospective juror who admitted to knowledge of the doctrine. By excluding jurors with knowledge of the doctrine the Court could insure that its invocation would be spontaneous. And yet, far from requiring the exclusion of jurors who are aware of the power, the Court takes comfort in the fact that informal communication to the jury “generally convey[s] adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says.” Majority opinion at 1135. One cannot, it seems to me, have the argument both ways. If, as the Court appears to concede, awareness is preferable to ignorance, then I simply do not understand the justification for relying on a haphazard process of informal communication whose effectiveness is likely to depend, to a large extent, on whether or not any of the jurors are so well-educated and astute that they are able to receive the message. If the jury should know of its power to disregard the law, then the power should be explicitly described by instruction of the court or argument of counsel.

My own view rests on the premise that nullification can and should serve an important function in the criminal process. I do not see it as a doctrine that exists only because we lack the power to punish *105jurors who refuse to enforce the law or to re-prosecute a defendant whose acquittal cannot be justified in the strict terms of law. The doctrine permits the jury to bring to bear on the criminal process- a sense of fairness and particularized justice. The drafters of legal rules cannot anticipate and take account of every case where a defendant’s conduct is “unlawful" but not blameworthy, any more than they can draw a bold line to mark the boundary between an accident and negligence. It is the jury — as spokesman for the community’s sense of values — that must explore that subtle and elusive boundary.

Admittedly, the concept of blameworthiness does not often receive explicit recognition in the criminal process. But it comes very close to breaking through the surface in cases where the responsibility defense is raised, see United States v. Brawner, 153 U.S.App.D.C. 1, at 62, 471 F.2d 969, at 1030 (1972) (en banc), (separate opinion); United States v. Bennett, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 364, 368-370, 460 F.2d 872, 876-878 (1972); United States v. Eichberg, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 110, 113, 439 F.2d 620, 623 (1971) (concurring opinion), and it is implicit in every case where criminal sanctions are imposed. More than twenty-five years ago this Court recognized that “[o]ur collective conscience does not allow punishment where it cannot impose blame.” 6 And the Supreme Court, in a well-known opinion by Justice Jackson, has pointed out that

courts of various jurisdictions, and for the purposes of different offenses, have devised working formulae, if not scientific ones, for the instruction of juries around such terms as “felonious intent,” “criminal intent,” “malice aforethought,” “guilty knowledge,” “fraudulent intent,” “wilfulness,’’ “scienter,” to denote guilty knowledge, or “mens rea,” to signify an evil purpose or mental culpability. By use or combination of these various tokens, they have sought to protect those who were not blameworthy in mind from conviction of infamous common-law crimes.' 7

The very essence of the jury’s function is its role as spokesman for the community conscience in determining whether or not blame can be imposed.8

I do not see any reason to assume that jurors will make rampantly abusive use of their power. Trust in the jury is, after all, one of the cornerstones of our entire criminal jurisprudence, and if that trust is without foundation we must re-examine a great deal more than just the nullification doctrine. Nevertheless, *106some abuse can be anticipated. If a jury refuses to apply strictly the controlling principles of law, it may — in conflict with values shared by the larger community — convict a defendant because of prejudice against him, or acquit a defendant because of sympathy for him and prejudice against his victim. Our fear of unjust conviction is plainly understandable. But it is hard for me to see how a nullification instruction could enhance the likelihood of that result. The instruction would speak in terms of acquittal, not conviction, and it would provide no comfort to a juror determined to convict a defendant in defiance of the law or the facts of the ease. Indeed, unless the jurors ignored the nullification instruction they could not convict on the grounds of prejudice alone. Does the judge’s recitation of the instruction increase the likelihood that the jury will ignore the limitation that lies at its heart ? I hardly think so.

As for the problem of unjust acquittal, it is important to recognize the strong internal check that constrains the jury’s willingness to acquit. Where defendants seem dangerous, juries are unlikely to exercise their nullification power, whether or not an explicit instruction is offered. Of course, that check will not prevent the acquittal of a defendant who may be blameworthy and dangerous except in the jaundiced eyes of a jury motivated by a perverse and sectarian sense of values. But whether a nullification instruction would make such acquittals more common is problematical, if not entirely inconceivable. In any case, the real problem in this situation is not the nullification doctrine, but the values and prejudice that prompt the acquittal.9 And the solution is not to condemn the nullification power, but to spotlight the prejudice and parochial values that underlie the verdict in the hope that public outcry will force a re-examination of those values, and deter their implementation in subsequent cases. Surely nothing is gained by the pretense that the jurors lack the power to nullify, since that pretense deprives them of the opportunity to hear the very instruction that might compel them to confront their responsibility.

One often-cited abuse of the nullification power is the acquittal by bigoted juries of whites who commit crimes (lynching, for example) against blacks.10 That repellent practice cannot be directly arrested without jeopardizing important constitutional protections — the double jeopardy bar and the jury’s power of nullification. But the revulsion and sense of shame fostered by that practice fueled the civil rights movement, which in turn made possible the enactment of major civil rights legislation. That same movement spurred on the revitalization of the equal protection clause and, in particular, the recognition of the right to be tried before a jury selected without bias.11 The lessons we learned from these abuses helped to create a climate in which such abuses could not so easily thrive.

Moreover, it is not only the abuses of nullification that can inform our understanding of the community’s values and standards of blameworthiness. The noble uses of the power — the uses that “enhance the over-all normative effect of the rule of law” — also provide an important input to our evaluation of the substantive standards of the criminal law. The reluctance of juries to hold defendants responsible for unmistakable violations of the prohibition laws told us much about the morality of those laws and about the “criminality” of the conduct they proscribed. And the same can be said of the acquittals returned under the fugitive slave law12 as well as con*107temporary gaming and liquor laws.13 A doctrine that can provide us with such critical insights should not be driven underground.

On remand the trial judge should grant defendants’ request for a nullification instruction. At the very least,14 I would require the trial court to permit defendants to argue the question before the jury. But it is not at all clear that defendants would prevail even with the aid of an instruction or argument. After all, this ease is significantly different from the classic, exalted cases where juries historically invoked the power to nullify. Here, the defendants have no quarrel with the general validity of the law under which they have been charged. They did not simply refuse to obey a government edict that they considered illegal, and whose illegality they expected to demonstrate in a judicial proceeding. Rather, they attempted to protest government action by interfering with others — specifically, the Dow Chemical Company. This is a distinction which could and should be explored in argument before the jury. If revulsion against the war in Southeast Asia has reached a point where a jury would be unwilling to convict a defendant for commission of the acts alleged here, we would be far better advised to ponder the implications of that result than to spend our time devising stratagems which let us pretend that the power of nullification does not even exist.

ADAMS, Circuit Judge:

This case presents several difficult and subtle issues. Their resolution requires a sensitive understanding of human dignity, American legal and political history, and the interrelationship of those factors with the present criminal justice system, for it is this system that ensures that all persons may peacefully pursue their interests without undue interference from others.

Here, the defendants, by interrupting the business of a large chemical company, attempted to publicize their dissenting views regarding the morality of the American involvement in the Vietnam War. It is apparent that the defendants attempted to exploit their criminal trial by using it as a platform for further exposition of their beliefs, and to rely on their moral position as a defense of criminal charges lodged against them. In furtherance of their efforts to transform what would otherwise be an ordinary criminal trial into a “political” fray, defendants wished to represent themselves, to deviate from the usual mode of conducting a criminal trial, and to argue to the jury that although they were in violation of the applicable statutes, they should be acquitted because their actions were morally justified.

The rulings of the district court regarding (a) the defendants’ motions to proceed pro se, (b) the defendants’ right to have the court charge the jury as to the nullification issue, and (c) the content of the charge as actually given provide the foundation of this appeal.

In addressing these questions, some of which are to a large extent as philosophical as they are legal, the Court of Appeals is at some disadvantage — especially with regard to self representation — in evaluating the district court’s action from the cold record, divorced from the climate of the time when the trial took place. We must be mindful that the •events in question here — defendants’ criminal acts as well as the trial itself— occurred during a period of passionate *108and at times bitter political dissent. Several so-called “political” trials, including those of Dr. Benjamin Spoek, the Catonsville Nine, and the Chicago Seven, occurred prior to this proceeding. In particular, it is significant that this trial closely followed that of the Chicago Seven, a trial wracked with violent disruptions when the defendants there challenged the underlying structure of the criminal justice system as we know it today.

In the context of what was transpiring in the judicial process in 1968 and 1969, the trial judge here was faced with a formidable task. On one hand, he had to preserve the judicial atmosphere vital in criminal proceedings to assure that both the Government and the defendants received a fair trial on the merits. The judge could not help but be aware that as a society we believe that an orderly, adversary trial by jury is a most efficacious means of arriving at the truth of the matters into which the court is inquiring. On the other hand, he had to take account of the asserted rights of the defendants to present themselves as moral persons — possessed with dignity and freedom of spirit, attributes upon which our system of Government was founded and built — as they sought to be acquitted of their crimes. In evaluating whether the trial judge erred, we must be cognizant of the delicate balance he had to strike between ordered tranquility and America’s irrepressible desire for liberty. Only if the court unduly weighted the scales against the defendants, either by his application of the facts of this ease to the rules governing his actions or by his interpretation of the controlling law, may we reverse the convictions.

The apposite law, in my judgment, is accurately set forth in Judge Leventhal’s opinion. Specifically, I concur in his holding that defendants have a statutory right to proceed pro se in a federal criminal trial, and that, in this case, it is not necessary to decide the question in Constitutional terms.1 I also concur in the conclusion that the right to proceed pro se is waivable, either expressly or constructively, for example, by untimely assertion or by disruptive behavior. However, I disagree with Judge Leventhal’s factual conclusion that the defendant’s behavior here did not amount to a constructive waiver of the pro se right. Because I do not consider that the trial judge violated this right of the defendants, it is not necessary to decide whether such a violation may nevertheless be considered harmless error.

Since I would not reverse these convictions based on violation of defendants’ *109right to self-representation, I need not express an opinion on the issues of jury nullification and the charge to the jury. With regard to these latter questions, Judge Leventhal’s statement of the law is wholly acceptable.

A careful review of the transcript of the proceedings with respect to defendants’ motions to dispense with counsel indicates that the defendants on many occasions interrupted the proceeding for various reasons, despite the fact they were represented by counsel at that time. The printed record cannot inform us whether such interruptions were violent, impolite, contemptuous, or made with an impertinent or sarcastic tone of voice. However more than once the judge had to threaten intervention by the marshals to impress upon defendants that they had to obey orders of the court to be seated. At other times, the language used by the defendants appeared to be disrespectful or even rude. That the trial judge appeared to tolerate many instances of this type of behavior, and even engaged in discourse with defendants, does not prove that he acquiesced in such extraordinary tactics, but rather indicates that he was attempting to preserve some sort of order.

Although it may be argued that there are some things in the judicial process more important than decorum in a courtroom, we are not faced with such perplexing alternatives here. Dissent is a healthy manifestation of the freedoms we as a nation profess and cherish. And a criminal trial might serve as the seed around which a point of view may crystallize. But a courtroom, is not an arena in which dissention, particularly of a disruptive nature, may supplant, or even take precedence over, the task of administering justice.

As mentioned earlier, it is not without significance that this trial occurred at a time when the judicial system was being subjected to great stress because of the actions of some defendants and attorneys. The trial judge was surely aware of the publicity that attended the commission of the charged crimes, and the notoriety the trial itself would achieve. To paraphrase a slogan of the “new left”, he did not have to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind was blowing.

Although a gale may have been raging in the courts at that time, challenging the very assumptions upon which our system of justice is based, a counter-current was also evident. Only a month after the trial here in question, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Illinois v. Allen, supra,. There, the various justices gave notice that they were aware of the storm and the damage it could wreak, and that they were determined that the judiciary have the ability to steer clear of the danger.2

*110Certainly, what transpired here, coupled with the real threat of further disruption, was sufficient to alert the trial judge to what could be expected if the motions to dispense with counsel were granted. Thus, his determination that to grant the motions would turn the trial into a shambles does not appear to be unreasonable.

Accordingly, I would conclude that defendants had, by their conduct, waived their right to proceed pro se, and would affirm the rulings by the district court that the defendants in these circumstances had to be represented by counsel. Based on this and on Judge Leventhal’s opinion with regard to nullification and the charge, I would affirm the judgments of convictions.

On Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:

The Government’s petition for rehearing leads us to amplify our opinion.

1. The Government argues that defendant’s right to defend himself at trial is not absolute, and cites the Standards Relating to the Function of the Trial Judge (ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, § 6.6, Tentative Draft, June 1972, at 85), which states in pertinent commentary:

Moreover, the interest of the public in an orderly, rational trial is entitled to consideration in determining the defendant’s right to appear pro se. See United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916, 937 (2d Cir. 1963); Butler v. United States, 317 F.2d 249, 258 (8th Cir. 1963).

We agree with this statement to the extent set forth in our opinion, including e. g., that a defendant’s disruption may waive his right to pro se representation. We note that both Butler, cited in our opinion (at fn. 14), and Bentvena,, are cases involving requests for pro se representation made after the commencement of trial — a situation that, as our opinion points out, is entirely different from that of a pro se claim made timely before trial begins. Indeed in Bentvena the court stated, 319 F.2d at 938:

One charged with crime has an absolute right to do without an attorney and conduct his own defense (28 U.S.C. § 1654), but that is quite different from the right to discharge counsel after trial has begun. This latter right is a qualified one.

2. The petition for rehearing submits:

With particular regard to the value of an orderly trial, we believe that a trial judge should have authority to engraft reasonable conditions on the *111exercise of a defendant’s right of self-representation.

It suffices to say that this case did not present a situation where the trial judge sought to prescribe reasonable conditions to accompany pro se representation. We do not have before us whether, or in what manner, a trial judge could prescribe conditions for the purpose of assuring a trial without disruption — to carry out the implied premise that there will be reasonable cooperation from the defendants, as opposed to any manipulation of the trial process so as to interfere with fair administration of justice.

3. The Government stresses a contention that the court’s opinion improperly bypasses the doctrine of harmless error. Apart from the matters set forth in the opinion already filed, we observe that if the conventional doctrine of harmless error is applied, it will in effect undercut the right of pro se representation, since rarely if ever can there be a showing of prejudice in terms of result from the conduct of a trial by counsel. There is no requirement of a showing of prejudice when counsel has been denied. A like rule is applicable, although for different reasons, when pro se representation is denied.

4. The Government objects that our opinion means that any denial of pro se representation will per se require reversal. It does not require reversal in a case where the trial judge makes findings of defendants’ prior disruption, or refusal to assure reasonable cooperation, or inability to waive counsel, etc. The effort to cope with the problem of disruptions necessarily puts an obligation on the trial judge * to stake out the considerations explicitly and with care. In the absence of some exposition of an appropriate basis for denying his right, the defendant is entitled to a trial at which he is accorded his right to represent himself.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Circuit Judge ADAMS dissents.