United States v. Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon

This case presents an appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession with intent to distribute a narcotic controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) (1976). At trial, the defendant attempted to offer *693 evidence of duress and necessity defenses. The district court excluded this evidence on the ground that it was insufficient to support the defenses. We reverse because there was sufficient evidence of duress to present a triable issue of fact.

I. FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon, is a native of Bogota, Colombia and was employed there as a taxicab driver. He asserts that one of his passengers, Jorge, offered him a job as the driver of a privately-owned car. Contento-Pachon expressed an interest in the job and agreed to meet Jorge and the owner of the car the next day.

Instead of a driving job, Jorge proposed that Contento-Pachon swallow cocaine-filled balloons and transport them to the United States. Contento-Pachon agreed to consider the proposition. He was told not to mention the proposition to anyone, otherwise he would “get into serious trouble.” Contento-Pachon testified that he did not contact the police because he believes…

(dissenting in part and concurring in part):

In order to establish a defense of duress, the trial court in this case required Contento-Pachon to show (1) that he or his family was under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) that he had a well grounded fear that the threat would be carried out; and (3) that he had no reasonable opportunity to escape the threat. Applying this three-part test, the trial court found that the defendant’s offer of proof was insufficient to support a defense of duress. The government argues that this holding should be affirmed and I agree.

The government also contends that the defense of duress includes a fourth element: That a defendant demonstrate that he submitted to proper authorities after attaining a position of safety. This is not an unreasonable requirement and I believe it should be applied. I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that the fourth element of the duress defense is only required in prison escape cases. Cases applying the fourth element have not so expressly limited its application. See, e.g., United States v. Peltier, 693 F.2d 96, 98 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Campbell, 609 F.2d 922, 924 (8th…

723 F.2d 691 75 A.L.R.Fed. 711 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Manuel CONTENTO-PACHON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 82-1687. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 8, 1983. Decided Jan. 12, 1984. Nicholas DeWitt, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Samuel Jackson, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. On appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before FERGUSON and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and COYLE, District Judge * . BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge. 1 This case presents an appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession with intent to distribute a narcotic controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (a)(1) (1976). At trial, the defendant attempted to offer evidence of duress and necessity defenses. The district court excluded this evidence on the ground that it was insufficient to support the defenses. We reverse because there was sufficient evidence of duress to present a triable issue of fact. I. FACTS 2 The defendant-appellant, Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon, is a native of Bogota, Colombia and was employed there as a taxicab driver. He asserts that one of…