UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny MORENO, Defendant-Appellant
102 F.3d 994, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9009, 46 Fed. R. Serv. 176 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is not entitled to present a duress defense if they fail to establish a lack of reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. The constitutional right to testify does not permit a defendant to present testimony that is irrelevant as a matter of law, such as testimony supporting a legally insufficient defense.
Facts:
- A senior gang member known as 'Joker' approached Danny Moreno and demanded he find someone to transport crack cocaine to Hawaii, stating Moreno would have to do it himself if he could not find a courier.
- Moreno knew Joker had a violent reputation, including having killed a man.
- Approximately two weeks later, Joker ordered Moreno to transport the drugs. When Moreno refused, citing his parental duties, Joker threatened to kill Moreno and his two young daughters.
- On May 4, 1994, Moreno met Joker, who again threatened him and his family, showed him a gun, warned him that associates would be watching, and helped tape four packages of crack cocaine to his body.
- Joker then drove Moreno to the airport and watched him board the plane to Honolulu.
- Upon arrival in Honolulu, police officer Thomas Krajewski approached Moreno.
- When Officer Krajewski requested to conduct a further search after an initial consensual search of a bag, Moreno fled, ran through traffic, and kicked the officer in the head before being subdued.
- A search of Moreno's person revealed packages of cocaine base taped to his abdomen and thighs.
Procedural Posture:
- The Government filed a motion in limine in the U.S. District Court to preclude Danny Moreno from asserting a duress defense.
- Moreno filed a proffer of evidence outlining the factual basis for his proposed defense.
- The district court granted the Government's motion, ruling that Moreno had failed to present prima facie evidence of duress.
- The Government filed a second motion in limine to prevent Moreno from presenting evidence of gang coercion to negate criminal intent, which the district court also granted.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Moreno of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.
- Moreno appealed his 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 trial court violate a defendant's right to present a defense and to testify when it precludes a duress defense and related testimony after the defendant fails to make a prima facie showing that they lacked a reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Alarcon
No, the trial court does not violate a defendant's rights by precluding a duress defense and related testimony where the defendant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the defense. To assert duress, a defendant must show: (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, (2) a well-grounded fear the threat will be carried out, and (3) a lack of a reasonable opportunity to escape. Moreno failed to establish the third element. He had a three-week period between the initial threat and the crime during which he could have contacted law enforcement or fled, especially since Joker did not know his or his family's precise location. Unlike the defendant in U.S. v. Contento-Pachon, Moreno offered no evidence that police were corrupt or that he could not escape the gang's reach. The encounter with Officer Krajewski at the airport provided a clear opportunity to seek help, but Moreno chose to flee and assault the officer instead. Because Moreno failed to establish a legally sufficient defense, his proposed testimony about his fear was irrelevant. The constitutional right to testify is not absolute and does not extend to presenting irrelevant evidence.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent requirements for the affirmative defense of duress, particularly the 'no reasonable opportunity to escape' prong. It clarifies that a defendant's subjective fear is insufficient if there was an objective window of opportunity to contact law enforcement or otherwise escape the threat. The ruling also sets a significant limitation on a defendant's constitutional right to testify, establishing that this right does not override evidentiary rules of relevance. By linking the admissibility of testimony directly to the legal sufficiency of the defense it supports, the court empowers trial judges to exclude entire lines of testimony if the underlying defense fails as a matter of law, thereby preventing jury confusion.
Unlock the full brief for UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny MORENO, Defendant-Appellant