Court Opinion

ID: 9466860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:31:00.462579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:01.156121
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Were defendant charged with escape rather than with attempted escape, I would be compelled to agree with the majority that “[ujnder the holding in Supreme Court v. Bailey, no duress instruction was required.” At 148. In Bailey, the Court rejected a challenge to an escape conviction holding “that, where a criminal defendant is charged with escape and claims that he is entitled to an instruction on the theory of duress or necessity, he must proffer evidence of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity had lost its coercive force.” 444 U.S. 394, 415, 100 S.Ct. 624, 637, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980).
Here, in contrast to the situation in Bailey, defendant was indicted and convicted of attempted escape. He was apprehended while still within the confines of the prison. In such circumstances, I find the issue of a return requirement upon which the majority relies incapable of resolution if not irrelevant. The majority says defendant’s entitlement to an instruction on duress was precluded by his intention, expressed in testimony at trial, “to remain free.” At 148. Even if I agreed satisfaction of a return requirement should be a prerequisite to obtaining an instruction on duress in cases of attempted escape, I would not hold this defendant bound by that testimony. It is not inconceivable that he might have changed his mind once he effected his escape. His testimony on this point represents no more than an expression of future intent.
The majority also relies on the fact defendant admitted an opportunity existed to notify prison officials of the threats against him as defeating his claim that he was entitled to a duress instruction. Defendant testified, however, that seeking protection from authorities would have been tantamount to placing himself in solitary confinement.1 Certainly, such segregation *150does not represent the “reasonable” alternative which the Court in dictum in Bailey also said an escapee must show he pursued in order to obtain a duress or necessity instruction. 444 U.S. at 409, 100 S.Ct. at 634. I view the possibility of segregation not as a significant alternative to escape but rather as another “evil,” evidence of which in other circumstances arguably could lay the groundwork for a requested instruction on the separate defense of necessity or “choice of evils.”2 It strains logic to premise entitlement to an instruction on a defense of duress excusing a crime on a showing by a defendant that he first pursued alternatives which in themselves might form the basis for a request for another instruction justifying the crime.
As a final point in support of its holding that a duress instruction was not required, the majority states defendant admitted he was not in immediate danger of death or severe injury at the time he escaped. I would note in response that the dispute between the two factions in the prison continued until defendant escaped. Defendant testified that although other inmates were not actually engaged in the act of trying to harm him at the time he escaped, the threat of harm continued unabated throughout the eleven months after he witnessed the murder. In fact, Caldwell stated that the assailant involved in the murder incident was about to be sentenced increasing the likelihood of an attack against defendant. I fail to find this to be an admission that he was not facing the prospect of immediate harm.
Despite trial counsel’s incompetence in failing to request an instruction on duress, defendant did bring the defense to the attention of the court by devoting considerable time in his closing statement to arguing that he escaped under duress. Defendant’s testimony as to the threats he faced within the prison and the lack of alternatives open to him also was relevant to development of a duress instruction. Certainly, the trial judge was familiar with the defense having given an instruction on coercion in a prosecution for attempted escape conducted eleven months earlier. See United States v. Micklus, 581 F.2d 612 (7th Cir. 1978).3 In *151these circumstances, the trial judge could not avoid his duty to give a duress instruction by saying there had been no request. I would characterize as “plain error” his failure to give such an instruction and would reverse and remand for a new trial with instructions that an instruction on duress or coercion be given to the jury.
Finally, I would hold that the incompetence of defense counsel in not objecting to admission of the conviction and commitment papers also compels reversal. The documents themselves were certainly relevant as proof that the escape was from confinement for a prior conviction, e. g., United States v. Chapman, 455 F.2d 746, 749 (5th Cir. 1972); Johnson v. United States, 313 F.2d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 1963) {per curiam), cert denied, 375 U.S. 987, 84 S.Ct. 521, 11 L.Ed.2d 474 (1964); however, I see no way in which the emphasis given by the red ink to the nature of the prior crime contributed to the probative value. Cf. United States v. Spletzer, 535 F.2d 950, 955-56 (5th Cir. 1976). Defense counsel should have recognized the highly prejudicial nature of the underscoring.4 The majority relies on his failure tt> object as waiving any error. I would hold instead that such failure falls below the constitutionally required minimum standard of professional representation.

. 1 find this belief was corroborated by testimony of the chief correctional supervisor at the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, that the only way to prevent harm against *150informants who have been threatened by other inmates is to lock the informants in protective segregation. While the Government attempted to develop that the possibility of a transfer existed as an alternative to any long-term protective segregation, there was also testimony that if defendant had chosen to go to authorities his reputation as an informant probably would have followed him wherever he was transferred making long-term protective segregation a certainty. The associate warden at the penitentiary testified that through such segregation measures officials are successful “for the most part” in keeping informants from being harmed, casting further doubt upon the availability of any alternative.

. Section 3.02 of the Model Penal Code explains a defense of necessity or “choice of evils” in pertinent part as follows:
(1) Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that:
(a) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged.
Modern cases have tended to blur the distinction between the defenses of duress and necessity, see, e. g., United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. at 409, 100 S.Ct. at 634; United States v. Mi-cheison, 559 F.2d 567, 568-69 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1977), and I draw it only to demonstrate that there were not any reasonable alternatives open to Caldwell.

. I do not believe our holding in Micklus precludes the result I would reach in this case. In Micklus, we held a convicted escapee had not been denied effective assistance of counsel by his attorney’s failure to develop a defense of necessity because that defense had not yet been recognized by federal courts. For similar reasons, we concluded that it was not plain error for the trial judge to fail'to give a necessity instruction which had not been requested.
Micklus had demanded and received an instruction on duress or coercion. On appeal, he argued an additional instruction on necessity was required by evidence of threatened homosexual attacks. We attempted in that case to make clear the distinction between necessity and the related defense of duress without concluding whether the necessity defense was required by the facts. I think the fact that an instruction had been given on the closely analogous duress theory sufficiently distinguishes Micklus from this case.
As I noted earlier, the distinction between the two defenses has been blurred, and insofar as the two concepts overlap, an instruction as to one as in Micklus is sufficient. In this case, the distinction is not as important as the failure to give an instruction on either theory.

. I do not believe the potential for prejudice was removed by the standard instruction concerning evidence of prior convictions which the trial judge gave. The Government apparently recognized the impact Caldwell’s prior conviction for first degree murder would have on the jury. In cross-examining defendant, the prosecution asked him to state the nature of the crime for which he had been convicted. Defendant’s objection to the question was sustained. I find the prosecutor’s attempt to remind the jury of the nature of that conviction to have been highly improper.