768 F.3d 735
7th Cir.2014Background
- White Feather (life sentence) and Running Bear (24-month sentence) were cellmates at USP‑Marion; an argument late on Dec 1 turned violent and escalated to deadly force.
- White Feather admitted he initially choked and rendered Running Bear unconscious, retrieved a razor blade, and later suffocated and then disemboweled Running Bear — ultimately admitting he intended to kill.
- The killing occurred while Running Bear was unconscious or at least nonresponsive when White Feather dragged him out and cut his abdomen, causing fatal abdominal trauma (with asphyxia contributory).
- The cell had a functioning duress button and guards could be summoned; White Feather acknowledged knowing the button summoned help and that he could have banged or yelled for assistance.
- Government moved to preclude a self‑defense justification; district court permitted evidence but refused a self‑defense jury instruction at close of evidence; jury convicted; White Feather appealed only the refusal to instruct on self‑defense.
Issues
| Issue | White Feather's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by refusing a self‑defense jury instruction | White Feather argued he acted because he perceived an imminent threat when he saw movement (toilet paper move) and believed he needed to kill to avoid being killed | Government argued there was no evidence of an actual, imminent threat at the time he disemboweled an unconscious inmate and legal alternatives (duress button, shouting for help) existed | Affirmed — no instruction warranted: no imminent threat and reasonable legal alternatives were available |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tokash, 282 F.3d 962 (7th Cir.) (imminence and lack of legal alternatives required for lesser‑evil defenses)
- United States v. Haynes, 143 F.3d 1089 (7th Cir.) (prisons are not jungles; imminence requirement applies to prisoner self‑defense)
- United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1979) (necessity/duress/self‑defense defenses require lack of reasonable legal alternatives)
- United States v. Jackson, 598 F.3d 340 (7th Cir.) (standards for entitlement to jury instruction on a defense)