United States v. Ibarra-Pino, 657 F.3d 1000

Ibarra drove a vehicle into the U.S. at Calexico West Port of Entry; 69 kilograms of marijuana were found in the tires, gas tank, and a hidden compartment.
Initial statements claimed he did not know about drugs; after questioning, he claimed he was forced by men who threatened his family to drive the vehicle into the U.S.
The government moved in limine to preclude a duress defense unless Ibarra showed prima facie elements; the court conditioned rulings on the elements of duress.
At trial, the court permitted some duress evidence, including post-arrest statements and a mother’s affidavit, and later denied a duress jury instruction after finding no prima facie showing.
Ibarra was convicted on importation and possession of marijuana; he argued the district court erred in precluding the duress defense and in denying the instruction.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Ibarra failed to show a lack of a reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm, a necessary element of duress.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether duress could be presented	Ibarra argues pretrial ruling precluded defense (Ibarra).	Government contends trial evidence allowed consideration of duress.	No reversible preclusion; duress evidence admitted, no reversible error on duress presentation.
Prima facie showing for duress	Ibarra needed prima facie showing to present duress or obtain instruction.	Government required prima facie showing of all elements before duress could be argued to jury.	District court did not err in requiring prima facie showing of all three elements; failure here foreclosed duress defense and instruction.
Lack of opportunity to escape	Threats and monitoring created lack of opportunity to escape; warrants duress.	There was a reasonable opportunity to escape by surrendering to authorities.	Ibarra had a reasonable opportunity to escape; no prima facie showing of duress.

United States v. Vasquez-Landaver, 527 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2008) (duress defense requires prima facie showing of three elements)
United States v. Moreno, 102 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 1996) (requires immediate threat, well-grounded fear, and lack of opportunity to escape)
United States v. Jennell, 749 F.2d 1302 (9th Cir. 1984) (duress evidence must be relevant to defense with prima facie showing)
United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1984) (opportunity to escape by cooperating with authorities at first reasonable opportunity)
United States v. Verduzco, 373 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (escape opportunities at point of inspection)
United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming ruling on evidentiary grounds when supported by record)