 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Maryland9/1/1994
nowingly or recklessly placed himself in a situation which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress."
B. Federal Cases
In U.S. v. Liu, 960 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1992), Liu, a government informant on illegal activity in the Houston, Texas, Asian community, was arrested for his involvement in a green card scam during a sting operation. Id. at 451. At trial, Liu claimed that he was acting out of fear of suffering injury or death at the hands of one of the police officers who initiated the sting operation. Id. at 452. The trial court, however, denied the instruction Liu submitted on the affirmative defense
of duress. Id. at 453. Affirming, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the requested instruction did not conform to Fifth Circuit requirements for a successful duress defense and that even if the instruction was consistent with Fifth Circuit requirements, he was not entitled to the defense. Id. at 454-55. The Court explained that pursuant to United States v. Harvey, 897 F.2d 1300, 1304-05 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendant must show
(1) that defendant was under an unlawful and 'present, imminent, and impending (threat) of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury .'; (2) that defendant had not 'recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be (forced to choose the criminal conduct)'; (3) that defendant had no 'reasonable legal alternative to violating the law; a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm', and (4) 'that a direct causal relationship may be reasonably anticipated between the (criminal) action taken and the avoidance of (threatened) harm.'
The court also cited U.S.v. Michelson, 559 F.2d 567, 569 (9th Cir. 1977); U.S. v. Lee, 694 F.2d 649, 654 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1086 (1983); U.S. v. Campbell, 675 F.2d 815, 820-21 (6th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 850 (1982) for the proposition that other circuits describe the defense in nearly the same manner. Liu, 960 F.2d at 453. See also United States v. Gant, 691 F.2d 1159, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Wheeler, 800 F.2d 100, 107 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Blanco, 754 F.2d 940, 943 (11th Cir. 1985) (stating that " claim of duress ... [is not applicable] when a defendant has recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation in which it was probable
that he would be subject to duress); United States v. Agard, 605 F.2d 665, 667 (2nd Cir. 1979) (noting that a claim of duress "will not constitute a valid legal excuse when the defendant has recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subject to duress.") (citing the Model Penal Code,
ยง 2.09(2) (Ten. Draft No. 1960)).
C. State Cases - Older cases
It is clear that the above-mentioned state cases rely heavily on a particular statute in that jurisdiction. The Maryland General Assembly, however, has not enacted any such statute. Accordingly, we now examine cases that do not rely on a statutorily enacted duress defense. Specifically, we focus on whether the rule that disqualifies a defendant from raising the defense of duress if the actor recklessly or negligently placed herself in the situation from which it arose has been recognized in instances where the particular jurisdiction had not statutorily enacted the duress defense.
In People v. Merhige, 212 Mich. 601, 180 N.W. 418 (Mich. 1920), three bank robbers had defendant Merhige, a public taxi driver, drive them to and from the bank they robbed. At trial, Merhige pled guilty and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|