United States v. Contento-Pachon

Facts

Contento-Pachon was a taxicab driver in Bogota, Colombia. He asserted that a passenger named Jorge offered him a job driving a privately-owned car. At the next meeting, Jorge instead proposed that he swallow cocaine-filled balloons and carry them to the United States. He was told not to mention the proposal to anyone, or he would "get into serious trouble." He testified that he did not contact the police because he believes the Bogota police are corrupt and are paid off by drug traffickers. About a week later he told Jorge he would not do it. Jorge answered by reciting private details of his life that he had never shared with Jorge. Jorge said that if he refused, his wife and three year-old child would die. The threats were repeated the next day, and he agreed. At the last meeting he swallowed 129 balloons of cocaine. He was told he would be watched at all times and that he and his family would be killed if he did not follow Jorge's instructions. His plane landed in Panama, where he did not notify the authorities, believing the police there were as corrupt as those in Bogota and fearing for his family. At the Los Angeles customs inspection point he consented to a stomach x-ray, which revealed cocaine.

Issues

1. Was Contento-Pachon's offer of proof enough on the elements of immediacy of the threat and lack of a reasonable opportunity to escape to present a triable issue of duress to the jury?
2. Does the duress defense include a fourth element requiring the defendant to submit to the authorities after reaching a position of safety, and was that element a bar here?
3. Was the necessity defense available to a defendant who said he was coerced by threats from other people against his family?

Holding

Contento-Pachon's evidence of duress was sufficient to present a triable issue of fact, so excluding the defense was error. A defendant who acted under a well-grounded fear of immediate harm with no opportunity to escape may assert duress if there is a triable issue whether he submitted to authorities at the first reasonable opportunity. Necessity was properly excluded because his acts were allegedly coerced by humans and not done to promote the general welfare.