UNITED STATES V. HANEY 287 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2002) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. HANEY

287 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2002)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Haney (D) appeals his conviction and sentence for violation of 18 U.S.C. 1791(a)(2) (possession of escape paraphernalia in prison). D asserts that the district court erred not permitting him to raise a defense of duress.

FACTS: On his first escape from prison Francis faced a severe dilemma. The TV show America's Most Wanted had incorrectly labeled Francis as the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood. This was not true but Francis had reason to fear retaliation from both African-American prison gangs and from the Aryan Brotherhood itself. At the prison facility where Francis was housed, there was a large amount of racial tension and the facility was even locked down for ten days due to that tension. Also, going to prison authorities would have labeled Francis as a snitch. Francis had been threatened by three African American inmates who had seen the TV show. They labeled him a target when the shit jumps off. Francis concluded that his only option was to attempt a prison escape. D agreed to help Francis. D used his position as an employee in the prison laundry to collect a variety of escape paraphernalia. Francis was threatened again and that provided renewed impetus for the escape attempt. They started their escape and hid in the prison yard. D endeavored to convince Francis that an escape attempt was, imprudent; D argued, in effect: '[T]he best possible solution would be to get caught trying to escape, thereby getting placed into disciplinary segregation without having to report the death threats to prison officials.' Francis ultimately agreed. After two hours the two inmates were finally caught. The United States charged both Francis and D with possession of escape paraphernalia in prison and attempted escape. At trial, the court instructed Francis' jury on duress as a defense to both charges. D's court refused to give a duress instruction on either count. The jury convicted both of possessing escape paraphernalia but acquitted both of attempting to escape. In acquitting Francis of the attempted escape, the jury expressly invoked the duress defense. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner