Opinion ID: 780791
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Status Conference on Mr. Haney's Duress Defense

Text: 14 The district court heard argument on the issue at a status conference held on November 19, 1999. At that hearing, Mr. Haney's argument that he was entitled to the duress defense clearly focused on the attempted escape charge. His counsel also informed the district court that Mr. Haney's primary defense to the charges would be that he did not have the specific intent to escape; he was merely assisting his co-defendant in his escape attempt. 7 R. (00-1429) 17. Counsel stated: 15 At trial Robert Haney is not going to interpose a duress defense to his alleged attempted escape.... In other words, if the government can prove that Robert Haney was himself trying to escape from custody, we have no duress defense.... [I]f the jury believes Haney was trying to escape, they can convict Haney. But if they believe he was simply trying to aid or abet or act as an accomplice to Francis, then they need to find him not guilty under a duress defense. 16 7 R. (00-1429) 20-21. The full transcript from the status conference demonstrates that Mr. Haney's only argument was that he was entitled to a duress instruction on the attempted escape charge if the government sought an aiding and abetting instruction on that charge. Counsel stated that, I conceded in my motion Haney should not have a duress defense as it applies solely to his own alleged attempted escape. 7 R. (00-1429) 29. 17 A further indication that Mr. Haney's only argument was that he be allowed to assert the duress defense if the government sought an aiding and abetting instruction is counsel's offer to enter into the following stipulation with the government: 18 [I]f I can get a stipulation from the government that they will not argue aiding and abetting, facilitation, encouraging, accomplicing on their escape with Robert Haney, then I can argue to the jury that, hey, he wasn't trying to escape. He was simply trying to help Francis escape. If you find that he himself was not trying to escape and he was merely trying to help Francis escape, you must find him not guilty on all charges, all right? If I make that argument to the jury, I don't need a necessity or duress defense. 19 7 R. (00-1429) 27; see also id. at 28 (If... Mr. Haney isn't going to get nailed for assisting Mr. Francis and we intend to present a lot of evidence in this trial that he wasn't trying to escape, he was merely trying to assist Mr. Francis we don't need necessity. We don't need duress.). Based on the government's representation that it did not intend to rely on an aiding and abetting theory, the district court characterized the duress defense issue as a nonissue. 7 R. (00-1429) 29. In response to counsel's statement that, I conceded in my motion Haney should not have a duress defense as it applies solely to his own alleged attempted escape, the court stated, [y]ou may concede it, but I am ordering it. There will be no duress defense available to Defendant Haney as it relates to the charge of attempted escape from the prison because there is no record to support that. 7 R. (00-1429) 29-30. 20 Thus, Mr. Haney's assertion of the duress defense was directed at the attempted escape charge, only insofar as the jury might convict him on an aiding and abetting theory. We recognize that Mr. Haney's co-defendant received the duress instruction on both charges, 1 R. Doc. 219, Instr. Nos. 34; 16 R. (00-1429) 1536-37, and the district court's written order denying the duress defense characterized Mr. Haney's position as he should be able to assert a duress claim to the charges of attempted escape. I R. Doc. 152 at 1. These facts however do not persuade us that either the district court or the government was aware that Mr. Haney sought a duress defense on the possession of escape paraphernalia charge, particularly where every record conversation addresses attempted escape.