United States v. Jaime Estrada-Monzon, 700 F. App'x 323

Border Patrol agents found Jaime Luis Estrada‑Monzon hiding in brush near Highway 83 within five miles of the U.S.–Mexico border; he was arrested and later indicted for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
At interview, Estrada‑Monzon admitted crossing the Rio Grande but did not claim fear of persecution or give further details.
At trial Estrada‑Monzon testified he had been kidnapped in Mexico, held and beaten by armed captors who ultimately forced him and others across the river into the U.S.; he said he did not want to enter the U.S. and hid when Border Patrol arrived.
After trial, the district court declined to give a requested duress instruction but gave a unanimity clarification explaining the elements (enter, attempt, or be found) and the meaning of “knowingly.”
The jury convicted Estrada‑Monzon; he was sentenced to 51 months and appealed, arguing (1) the court should have instructed on duress and (2) cross‑examination about prior illegal reentries was prejudicial.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the duress instruction was properly denied for lack of evidence of no reasonable legal alternative and that prior‑reentry testimony was admissible and not plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by refusing a duress jury instruction	Estrada‑Monzon argued his kidnapping and forcible transport entitled him to duress instruction	Government argued defendant failed to prove elements of duress, especially lack of reasonable legal alternative	Denied — no abuse of discretion: defendant failed to show he had no reasonable legal alternative once Border Patrol appeared and while in the U.S.
Whether cross‑examination about prior reentries was unduly prejudicial	Estrada‑Monzon argued questioning about prior reentries was cumulative and prejudicial	Government argued prior reentries were probative of intent and lack of legal status; defendant testified about prior entries, reducing prejudice	Affirmed — testimony was relevant to intent and duress issues, not plain error; limiting instruction minimized prejudice

United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289 (5th Cir. 1994) (district court has substantial latitude in jury instructions)
United States v. Posada‑Rios, 158 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 1998) (elements and burden for duress affirmative defense)
United States v. Willis, 38 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 1994) (defendant must prove duress by preponderance)
United States v. Ramirez‑Salazar, 819 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2016) (illegal reentry is a continuing offense and definition of being “found”)
United States v. Santana‑Castellano, 74 F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 1996) (when a defendant is “found” for § 1326 purposes)
United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (Rule 404(b) and Beechum test for admissibility)
United States v. McMahon, 592 F.2d 871 (5th Cir. 1979) (limiting instruction reduces unfair prejudice)
United States v. Harper, 802 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1986) (absence of legal alternative for duress requires actual attempt or futility)
United States v. Dixon, 413 F.3d 520 (5th Cir. 2005) (duress inquiry is objective; reasonable‑alternative requirement)