Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit • 1984

United States v. Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon

723 F.2d 691 | 75 A.L.R. Fed. 711 | 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 26518

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on duress when credible proffered evidence could show immediate, credible threats and no reasonable means of escape, even if the government can point to contrary inferences.

Background

Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon, a Bogota taxicab driver, testified that a passenger named Jorge recruited him to smuggle cocaine into the United States by swallowing cocaine-filled balloons. After Contento-Pachon initially refused, Jorge revealed detailed knowledge of his wife, three-year-old child, and home address, and threatened to kill his family if he did not cooperate. Contento-Pachon ultimately swallowed 129 cocaine-filled balloons. He said Jorge told him that he would be watched throughout the trip and that any failure to follow instructions would result in his and his family's deaths.

Contento-Pachon did not report the threats to Colombian or Panamanian authorities because he believed police there were corrupt and connected to drug traffickers. At the Los Angeles customs checkpoint, he consented to an x-ray, which revealed the balloons. He was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Before trial, the government obtained an order excluding evidence supporting duress and necessity defenses. The district court concluded that Contento-Pachon's offer of proof did not establish an immediate threat or a lack of reasonable escape opportunities. Contento-Pachon appealed after his conviction.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Contento-Pachon offered sufficient evidence to permit a jury to consider a duress defense.

Holding

Yes. His proffered evidence created triable factual issues as to immediate threat, well-grounded fear, and the absence of a reasonable opportunity to escape; excluding the defense was error.

Reasoning

The Ninth Circuit described duress as requiring an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, and no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. A trial judge may exclude a defense that is legally unsupported, but disputed facts and credibility ordinarily belong to the jury.

The threats described here were sufficiently immediate for a jury to consider. Jorge was allegedly involved in high-stakes drug trafficking, knew private details about Contento-Pachon's family and residence, and specifically threatened to kill his wife and child if he refused. Those facts could support a finding that the threats were not merely vague warnings of distant or unspecified future harm.

The asserted surveillance during the journey also supported immediacy. Contento-Pachon testified that Jorge's accomplice watched him throughout the trip and that disobedience would bring harm to him and his family. If the jury credited that testimony, it could find that the coercive threat continued to operate while he transported the cocaine.

A jury could also find that reporting the threats to police was not a reasonable avenue of escape. Contento-Pachon testified that he believed Bogota police were corrupt and paid by traffickers, and he held the same concern about Panamanian police. The question was not whether reporting to police was theoretically possible, but whether a person in his position could reasonably regard it as safe and effective.

Fleeing was likewise not necessarily a reasonable alternative as a matter of law. Contento-Pachon would have had to relocate himself, his wife, and his young child, abandon his job and possessions, and reach a place beyond the traffickers' influence. A juror could conclude that this was not a realistic means of protecting his family.

Although some cases require a defendant to surrender to authorities upon reaching safety, that requirement principally arose in prison-escape cases. In any event, the surrender question substantially overlaps with whether the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. Contento-Pachon claimed he was watched until customs and consented to an x-ray at the first chance to cooperate without alerting his observer; that account was sufficient for jury consideration.

Issue #2

Whether Contento-Pachon was entitled to present a necessity defense.

Holding

No. The district court properly excluded necessity because the alleged coercion came from human threats and Contento-Pachon did not act to advance the general welfare.

Reasoning

Necessity applies when a defendant chooses the lesser of two evils: committing an offense rather than allowing a greater harm to occur. Traditionally, necessity concerns pressure created by physical forces or circumstances, while duress concerns criminal conduct compelled by another person's threats.

Modern doctrine sometimes blurs the boundary between the defenses, but Contento-Pachon's evidence fit duress rather than necessity. He alleged that drug traffickers forced him to act through threats to him and his family; he did not claim that natural forces or an independently arising emergency compelled the crime.

Nor did he act to promote a broader public good, as defendants invoking necessity often claim to have done. His claimed purpose was to protect himself and his family from traffickers. Thus, he had relabeled evidence of duress as necessity, and necessity was unavailable.

Dissents

Judge Coyle

Reasoning

Judge Coyle agreed that necessity was properly excluded but would have affirmed the exclusion of duress evidence. In his view, the district court correctly held that the defense required an immediate threat, a well-grounded fear, and no reasonable opportunity to escape, and Contento-Pachon's proffer failed on immediacy and escapability.

The threats, in Judge Coyle's view, were conditional threats tied to future noncooperation rather than present, immediate, or impending harm. Contento-Pachon was away from the traffickers on numerous occasions, and the record did not show that his family had been directly threatened or even knew of the alleged threats.

Judge Coyle also concluded that Contento-Pachon and his family had reasonable legal alternatives before he swallowed the balloons. They were not physically restrained and could have sought police protection or fled. Because duress is available only when the unlawful act is the sole way to avoid the danger, the absence of attempts to seek help or leave defeated the defense.

He would also apply a fourth duress requirement beyond prison-escape cases: the defendant should show that he submitted to proper authorities after reaching a position of safety. Judge Coyle found unpersuasive the majority's distinction between prison escapes and other crimes, reasoning that the claimed threats in Los Angeles were no more immediate than retaliatory threats feared by an escapee returning to prison.

Finally, Judge Coyle emphasized the district court's broad discretion over evidentiary rulings. Because the record supported the trial court's assessment that the threats lacked immediacy and that reasonable alternatives existed, he saw no abuse of discretion in granting the government's motion in limine.