I am not sure if it fits your question, but defendants and their attorneys can navigate bourgeois law in order to assist radical movements. This requires defying the individualistic framework of the (criminal) legal system. The J20 case is the ideal example of such manoeuvering, where more than two hundred people were arrested and charged of rioting. I will quote the Tilted Scales Collective:

Taking plea agreements to lower-level charges would have been legally sensible for manypeople, especially if they were not individually accused of damaging property or organizingthe demonstration. Nevertheless, most of the accused agreed to “Points of Unity” that asserted they would not cooperate with the prosecution (including testifying or making statements against other defendants), would share information and resources to help each other fight their charges, and would support each other’s individual decisions as long as they were not at anyone else’s expense. Later political messaging and organizing concentrated on defendants taking their cases to trial unless all the charges were dropped for every person who was charged.

In late November 2017, six people charged with rioting went on trial. Prosecutors alleged that these six people were taking part in DisruptJ20 protests and vandalism. A jury trial found the six defendants not guilty on all counts in December 2017. On January 18, 2018, the U.S. Justice Department dropped charges against 129 people, leaving 59 defendants to face charges related to the DisruptJ20 protest. By early July 2018, federal prosecutors had dropped all charges against all defendants in the case.