Source: https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/defenses-special-defenses-defenses/duress.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:05:57+00:00

Document:
When a defendant raises a duress defense, the defendant admits to committing the offense, but claims to have done so because of the apprehension of “immediate death or serious bodily harm.” Therefore, the defendant is not criminally responsible. R.C.M. 916(h).
The immediacy element of the defense is designed to encourage individuals promptly to report threats rather than breaking the law themselves.
In United States v. Palus, 13 M.J. 179 (C.M.A. 1982) the Court found that the defense of duress was not proper where the defendant claimed that he feared for his family’s safety when his wife was harassed in Las Vegas about his gambling debts.
In United States v. Ellerbee, 30 M.J. 517 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990) the Court found that the evidence was sufficient to raise the question of duress.
In United States v. Riofredo, 30 M.J. 1251 (N.M.C.M.R. 1990) the Court found that the evidence was not sufficient to raise duress.
In United States v. Jemmings, 1 M.J. 414, 418 (C.M.A. 1976) the Court found that the threat to inflict harm the next day was sufficient to activate a duress defense where accused’s company commander had previously refused to assist.
In United States v. Biscoe, 47 M.J. 398 (C.A.A.F. 1998) the Court found that sexual harassment did not constitute duress when victim conceded that she did no fear for her life or the lives of her children when she went AWOL.
Life threatening racial attacks and sexual harassment. United States v. Hullum, 15 M.J. 261 (CMA 1983); United States v. Roberts, 14 M.J. 671 (NMCMR 1982), rev’d in part, 15 M.J. 106 (CMA 1983).
In United States v. Vasquez, the Court held that a reasonable apprehension does not exist if the accused has any reasonable opportunity to avoid committing the act without subjecting himself or another innocent person to the harm threatened. The accused had a reasonable opportunity to seek legal advice or information concerning his fears of Turkish jails without relying on a “Hollywood dramatization.” 48 M.J. 426 (C.A.A.F. 1998).
In order for duress to exist, there must be no reasonable escape from the threat except to comply. C.M. 916(h). In United States v. Banks, 37 M.J. 700 (A.C.M.R. 1993), the Court found that duress was not a valid defense where the defendant was charged with being AWOL, due to the serious illness of his mother.
Financial hardship is not considered duress under military law. In United States v Barnes, the Court found that a threat to harm the defendant’s finances did not amount to duress. 12 M.J. 779 (ACMR 1981).
Duress is never a defense to homicide.
The defense of duress may be raised where the defendant acted in response to a threat against any innocent person. R.C.M. 916(h). In United States v. Pinkston, 39 C.M.R. 261(C.M.A. 1969), the Court held that a threat against the defendant’s fiancée and child can raise the defense of duress. Similarly, in United States v. Jemmings, 1 M.J. 414 (C.M.A. 1976), the Court allowed a duress defense where the defendant’s children were threatened.
If a defendant raises duress as a defense, in order to rebut the duress claim, the prosecution may introduce evidence of the defendant’s other voluntary crimes. See United States v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1977); M.R.E. 404(b).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.