Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER RICARD CHRISTOPHER ALAN BAIRD LUU NGUYEN DIEU HONG

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-14

Docket: 1:22-cr-20488-JEM-5

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of three defendants convicted of kidnapping and stalking. The court addressed fourteen issues raised by the appellants but focused its substantive analysis solely on whether the district court erred in refusing to allow two defendants, Baird and Hong, to present a duress defense or provide a corresponding jury instruction. Applying a de novo standard of review to determine if the evidence was sufficient to create a jury question on an affirmative defense, the court applied the three-element test for duress established in *United States v. Amede*: (1) acting under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) having a well-grounded fear that the threat would be carried out; and (3) having no reasonable opportunity to escape or inform the police. The court found the defendants’ evidentiary proffer insufficient to satisfy any of these elements. First, the immediacy requirement was not met because the armed guards who posed a threat left several hours before the defendants ceased their criminal conduct, and any threat from the primary actor was intermittent rather than continuous. Second, the fear was not well-grounded as trial evidence showed the primary actor was nonviolent toward the defendants. Third, the defendants had ample opportunity to escape or contact law enforcement, such as when Baird drove alone to a restaurant or when Hong traveled separately from the threat for hours. Consequently, the court held that the district court correctly ruled the defendants were not entitled to a duress defense and properly refused the requested jury instruction. The remaining thirteen issues raised by the defendants were summarily affirmed as meritless. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, leaving the defendants’ prison sentences in place.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.