In California, where this happened, it actually does. Did you read the whole article?

DxE had obtained a legal opinion from Hadar Aviram, a professor at UC College of Law, San Francisco, saying that the activists had a valid defense for their actions because California law allows defendants to argue that they were providing aid to suffering animals out of necessity.

Furthermore, motivation is taken into consideration in many other cases across the US. For example, it is acceptable to break into someone's car to save a baby locked inside. It may even be acceptable to break into a car to save a dog. In which case, it should be acceptable to break into a poultry farm to save abused animals.

The judge here refused to even allow this defense to be considered. She also refused to allow an amicus brief from another legal expert. This was all apparently part of a coordinated plan to slip through an overall unjust conviction and put the leader of this campaign group in jail - the local county is heavily in bed with these farms.

So I stand by my assertion, she is a bitch, and furthermore I think she is grossly unprofessional and should be disrobed.

Actually ... it is. When a jury decides it's sufficiently morally justified as to not be considered criminal, it's called "Jury Nullification"