Background
Defendants Ricard, Baird, and Hong conspired to retrieve money from an investor named Ha Nguyen. They traveled to Miami, hired armed security guards, and forcibly took Ha Nguyen, her nanny, and her children. The group held the victims for several hours, demanding money and threatening the children. The defendants were convicted of kidnapping and stalking. Baird and Hong appealed, arguing the district court erred by refusing to allow them to present a duress defense.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the defendants’ proffer for a duress defense under a de novo standard. The court found the defendants failed to satisfy the three essential elements of the defense. First, the threat was not immediate throughout the entire crime because the armed guards left hours before the defendants ceased their conduct. Second, the defendants failed to show a well-grounded fear that the threat would be carried out, as the record showed Ricard was nonviolent toward them. Third, the defendants had reasonable opportunities to escape or contact the police, such as when Baird drove alone or when Hong was separated from the armed guards.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the rigorous immediacy requirement for duress defenses in the Eleventh Circuit, requiring that the threat persist throughout the criminal conduct.