723 F.2d 691.
Dressler, pp. 553-556
Facts: The defendant was forced to smuggle cocaine into the
Issue: Was there sufficient evidence of duress to present a
triable issue of fact?
Rule: The elements of the duress defense are: (1) an
immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, (2) a well-grounded fear
that the threat will be carried out, and (3) no reasonable opportunity to
escape the threatened harm.
Analysis: The court focuses on the first and third elements of
duress. The defendant presented evidence
that showed that he believed he was being watched the whole time he was doing
the smuggling. The court finds that there
was enough evidence of this that a factfinder could reasonably conclude that
the threat was immediate.
The defendant also claims
that he had no reasonable opportunity to escape because he thought the police
were corrupt and fleeing would be too dangerous. The court also finds that there is enough
evidence for the issue of whether escape was reasonable to the
factfinder.
On the other hand, the court upholds
the decision of the trial court to exclude the defense of necessity. The court finds that necessity doesn’t apply
when the allegedly necessary action was precipitated by human action rather
than some physical force of nature.
The dissenting judge would
not have allowed either defense, and accepts the district court’s rationale for
refusing duress. I think this is bogus,
especially the part about going to the cops.
The way the cops are in
Conclusion: The conviction was reversed. (Was a new trial ordered? I guess you can’t.)