United States v. Graham
663 F. App'x 622
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Richard Graham was indicted for escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) after months away from a residential reentry center; he proceeded to a bench trial to preserve an appeal.
- The government moved in limine to exclude any duress or necessity defense; the district court held a pretrial hearing to assess the adequacy of Graham’s duress claim.
- The district court offered three procedural options (pretrial proffer, pretrial evidentiary hearing, or allow evidence at trial) and expressly permitted an unsourced proffer; Graham refused to proffer, invoking the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
- The court also offered that Graham could wait until after the government’s case-in-chief to proffer and present duress evidence outside the jury’s presence; Graham declined.
- Because Graham made no proffer and presented no evidence on each element of duress, the district court precluded the duress defense and found him guilty based on the government’s evidence.
- Graham appealed, arguing the pretrial proffer requirement violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Graham's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may require an evidentiary proffer before allowing a duress defense at trial | Proffer requirement forces disclosure of defense, infringes Fifth Amendment privilege, Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and right to present defense | Proffer is a valid gatekeeping tool to test relevance and sufficiency; courts routinely require pretrial notice/proffer for defenses | Court held proffer requirement constitutional; exclusion of duress for failure to proffer did not violate rights |
| Whether refusing to proffer and then being barred from presenting the defense implicates constitutional error | Refusal is protected; defendant may withhold details until trial before jury | If defendant refuses to proffer, court cannot assess relevance/sufficiency and may exclude the defense without constitutional violation | Court held refusal forecloses court’s ability to assess admissibility; exclusion does not violate Constitution |
| Proper standard/timing for court review of affirmative defenses like duress | Defendant: must be allowed to present defense at trial without pretrial scrutiny | Court: may review defense pretrial, midtrial, or at close of evidence; may require element-by-element showing before presenting to jury | Court reaffirmed broad trial-court discretion to gatekeep and to require proffers at various times |
| Whether exclusion of duress here was reversible error | Graham: constitutional error requiring reversal | Government: exclusion appropriate due to absence of proffer/evidence on elements | Held: no reversible constitutional error; affirm conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Portillo-Vega, 478 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2007) (trial court has gatekeeping authority to manage duress evidence and may preclude defense if elements unsupported)
- United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) (trial court need not burden jury with defense evidence if defendant cannot meet threshold showing for an element)
- Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) (notice-of-alibi rules do not violate Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment; pretrial disclosure can avoid trial disruption)
- United States v. Montelongo, 420 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2005) (reviewed confrontation/right-to-present limits where proffered testimony was considered by the court)
- United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2006) (defendant must produce sufficient evidence of each element to obtain jury instruction on affirmative defense)
- Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 1998) (requiring pretrial proffer does not violate Fifth Amendment privilege)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (right to testify is not unlimited; testimony must be relevant and may be limited to accommodate trial interests)