United States v. Bonilla-Siciliano, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13642

Bonilla-Siciliano was convicted of illegal reentry by a previously deported alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) and sentenced to 70 months.
Before trial, Bonilla-Siciliano sought to present a necessity defense; the court allowed an offer of proof but doubted its merit and warned about potential additional witnesses.
Bonilla-Siciliano testified during an offer of proof about threats from government and gangs in El Salvador due to his tattoos, and his inability to remove tattoos, claiming danger in multiple countries.
The district court held that Bonilla-Siciliano failed to provide a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the necessity defense under the applicable standard.
The jury found him guilty, and the district court affirmed the 70-month sentence on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the necessity defense should have been submitted to the jury	Bonilla-Siciliano argues the district court erred by not submitting necessity.	USA contends the defense lacked prima facie evidence to submit.	No; necessity not properly supported, defense not submitted.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance	Bonilla-Siciliano contends the denial prevented a complete defense.	USA asserts the court acted within broad discretion given delay and trial preparedness.	No; decision not egregious or fundamentally unfair.

United States v. El-Alamin, 574 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2009) (necessity defense requires an evidentiary foundation for each element)
United States v. Jankowski, 194 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 1999) (proper standard for evaluating necessity defense may differ from preponderance)
White v. Lockhart, 857 F.2d 1218 (8th Cir. 1988) (continuance decisions recognized as within broad judicial discretion)
Polanco-Gomez, 841 F.2d 235 (8th Cir. 1988) (absence of alternatives relevant to necessity analysis)