Iva Ikuko Toguri D'Aquino v. United States
192 F.2d 338, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3485 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A United States citizen, even when residing in an enemy country during wartime, commits treason by adhering to the enemy and giving them aid and comfort with treasonable intent. The defense of duress requires a well-grounded apprehension of immediate and impending death or serious bodily harm; a generalized fear of future harm or the coercive atmosphere of an enemy state is insufficient.
Facts:
- Iva D'Aquino, a United States citizen by birth, was visiting Japan when war broke out between the U.S. and Japan.
- Her attempts to return to the United States before the war were unsuccessful, as she was denied a passport.
- From late 1943 to August 1945, D'Aquino worked for the Broadcasting Corporation of Japan, which was controlled by the Japanese government.
- She participated in approximately 340 broadcasts of a propaganda program called 'Zero Hour', which was aimed at demoralizing American armed forces in the Pacific.
- In October 1944, following a battle in Leyte Gulf, D'Aquino made a broadcast stating to American forces: 'Now you fellows have lost all your ships. You really are orphans of the Pacific. Now how do you think you will ever get home?'
- During this same period, D'Aquino frequently provided food, medicine, and aid to Allied prisoners of war at significant personal risk.
- Throughout the war, D'Aquino steadfastly refused opportunities to renounce her U.S. citizenship and become a Japanese citizen.
Procedural Posture:
- Iva D'Aquino was indicted for treason against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The indictment charged her with adhering to the enemies of the U.S. by working as a broadcaster for Japan during World War II, and it alleged the commission of eight overt acts.
- Following a jury trial, D'Aquino was convicted of committing a single overt act: broadcasting about the loss of American ships in October 1944.
- D'Aquino, as the appellant, appealed her conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a United States citizen commit treason by broadcasting propaganda for an enemy nation during wartime if the citizen's actions were not performed under a well-grounded apprehension of immediate and impending death or serious bodily harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Pope, Circuit Judge
Yes. A U.S. citizen commits treason by knowingly broadcasting propaganda for an enemy nation with treasonable intent, and the defense of duress is only available if the citizen acted under an immediate threat of death or serious injury. The court affirmed D'Aquino's conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to establish her treasonable intent and overt act, and holding that the trial court's strict instruction on the defense of duress was proper. The court reasoned that D'Aquino, as a U.S. citizen, owed allegiance to the United States regardless of her location. The jury was entitled to find she possessed the requisite treasonable intent despite her acts of kindness to prisoners, viewing the latter as not negating a general intent to betray the United States. Crucially, the court upheld the traditional standard for duress, which requires an apprehension of 'immediate and impending death or of serious and immediate bodily harm.' The court rejected the argument that a lesser standard should apply to a citizen in an enemy country, stating that the person 'must be a person whose resistance has brought him to the last ditch.' Since there was no evidence that D'Aquino faced such an immediate threat, her defense of coercion failed.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the stringent requirements for the duress defense in treason prosecutions, affirming that even the coercive atmosphere of a totalitarian enemy state during wartime does not lessen the standard. The court established that the threat must be of immediate and severe physical harm, not merely a generalized or future fear. The case also clarifies that a defendant's contradictory actions—committing treasonous acts while also showing compassion to individual prisoners—do not preclude a finding of treasonable intent; it is a factual question for the jury to resolve. This precedent reinforces the high duty of allegiance owed by a U.S. citizen and makes the duress defense exceptionally difficult to mount in treason cases.
