United States v. Contento-Pachon
723 F.2d 691 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to present a duress defense to the jury when there is sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant acted under an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death, had a well-grounded fear the threat would be carried out, and had no reasonable opportunity to escape.
Facts:
- Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon, a taxi driver in Bogota, Colombia, was offered what he thought was a private driving job by a passenger named Jorge.
- Jorge instead proposed that Contento-Pachon swallow cocaine-filled balloons and transport them to the United States.
- Contento-Pachon initially refused the proposition.
- In response, Jorge recited private details about Contento-Pachon's life and threatened to have his wife and three-year-old child killed if he did not cooperate.
- Believing the threat was credible, Contento-Pachon agreed and swallowed 129 balloons of cocaine.
- He was told he would be watched at all times during his travel from Bogota, through Panama, to the United States.
- Contento-Pachon did not contact authorities in Bogota or Panama, believing the police in both countries were corrupt and paid off by drug traffickers.
- Upon arriving at the customs inspection point in Los Angeles, Contento-Pachon consented to an x-ray of his stomach.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States prosecuted Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon in the U.S. District Court (trial court) for unlawful possession of a narcotic with intent to distribute.
- Prior to trial, the government filed a motion in limine to exclude Contento-Pachon's proffered evidence supporting the defenses of duress and necessity.
- The district court granted the government's motion, finding the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to support either defense.
- Contento-Pachon was convicted of the charge.
- Contento-Pachon, as the appellant, 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 defendant's proffer of evidence showing specific threats against his family by drug traffickers, a subjective belief that local police were corrupt, and a claim of being under constant surveillance create a sufficient factual issue for a duress defense to be presented to a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Boochever, J.
Yes. A defendant's evidence creates a triable issue of fact for a duress defense where it is sufficient for a jury to find a well-grounded fear of an immediate threat and no reasonable opportunity to escape. The trial court erred by excluding the duress defense as a matter of law. The court's reasoning was that the threats against Contento-Pachon and his family were specific and ongoing, not vague future harm, creating a factual question on immediacy. Furthermore, a jury should decide whether Contento-Pachon's belief about police corruption and the difficulty of fleeing with his family made escape an unreasonable option. The court distinguished the fourth element of duress (surrender to authorities), often required in prison escape cases, noting it merges with the 'no reasonable opportunity to escape' element in this context, and Contento-Pachon's consent to an x-ray could be seen as surrendering at the first reasonable opportunity. The court affirmed, however, the exclusion of the necessity defense, as it applies when coercion comes from physical forces of nature and the act serves the general welfare, not when coercion is from human forces for personal safety.
Dissenting-in-part-and-concurring-in-part - Coyle, J.
No. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the duress defense because the defendant’s proffered evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. The trial court correctly found that the threats lacked immediacy, as they were conditioned on future non-cooperation and the defendant had numerous opportunities over several weeks to contact police or flee before ingesting the drugs. Where a reasonable legal alternative to violating the law exists, the duress defense must fail. The dissent also argued that the fourth element of duress—surrendering to authorities upon reaching safety—should apply in all cases, not just prison escapes, and the defendant failed to meet this requirement. The dissent concurred with the majority's conclusion that the necessity defense was properly excluded.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold for raising a duress defense, emphasizing that questions of credibility and reasonableness are typically for the jury, not the judge. By holding that a defendant's subjective but plausible beliefs about the futility of seeking police help or the unreasonableness of flight can create a triable issue, the court lowered the barrier for defendants to present this affirmative defense. The ruling also reinforces the doctrinal distinction between duress, which arises from human coercion, and necessity, which involves a choice between two evils often prompted by natural forces. This case is significant for establishing that the jury must weigh the defendant's circumstances in determining whether there was a 'reasonable' opportunity to escape.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Contento-Pachon