572 F. App'x 278
5th Cir.2014Background
- Pal Sat was convicted by a jury of two counts of failing to depart after a lawful order of removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(C).
- Sat refused to board removal flights to India on Sept. 12 and Oct. 16, 2012, at Alexandria, Louisiana.
- Sat asserted an affirmative duress defense, testifying he feared he would be attacked and likely killed if returned to India.
- The district court denied Sat’s motions for judgment of acquittal; Sat appealed the sufficiency ruling and challenged portions of the Government’s closing argument as improper.
- The Government noted Sat had filed an asylum request that was denied by an asylum officer and that Sat missed a subsequent hearing.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the duress claim de novo and the unpreserved closing-argument claim for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of duress defense | Sat argued his fear of harm in India excused his refusal to depart | Government argued harm in India was not an imminent threat at the time of refusal and duress elements not met | Affirmed: a rational jury could find no imminent, impending threat at the airport; duress not proven by preponderance |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument (deference to prior asylum finding) | Sat argued the Government improperly urged jurors to defer to an immigration officer’s denial of asylum | Government argued the statement was factually correct and brief; any error was harmless | Affirmed: statement factually correct; even if improper, did not plainly affect substantial rights under plain-error review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 1998) (elements and imminence requirement for duress defense)
- Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006) (burden to prove duress by preponderance)
- United States v. Harper, 802 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1986) (duress requires imminent danger at the moment of the offense)
- United States v. McCann, 613 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2010) (analysis for prosecutorial misconduct in closing)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir.) (noting single closing statement rarely justifies reversal)