United States v. Russell Edward Hamilton

983 F.2d 1078 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell Edward HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-50013. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 10, 1992. Decided Dec. 30, 1992. Before FERGUSON, CANBY and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Russell Edward Hamilton appeals his conviction, following a conditional guilty plea, for escape from confinement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (a). Hamilton contends that the district court erred by granting the prosecution's motion in limine to preclude evidence supporting a duress defense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. 3 A district court may rule on the adequacy of the factual foundation of the duress defense prior to trial because "it is essential that the testimony ... proffered meet a minimum standard as to each element of the defense so that, if a jury finds it to be true, it…