United States v. Zayac, 765 F.3d 112

Zayac was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, felony murder, robbery, marijuana possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy to use or possess a firearm, and multiple destruction of evidence counts.
The district court sentenced Zayac to concurrent life terms for kidnapping and murder plus lesser sentences for other counts.
On appeal, Zayac argues the evidence was insufficent on several counts, the district court erred in evidentiary rulings, and he was entitled to a duress instruction for kidnapping and robbery.
Key defense theory was that Gonzalez committed the core acts, and Zayac sought to admit an empty holster and magazine as corroboration.
The government introduced Zayac’s inconsistent statements to investigators and sought to mitigate them with testimony from his former attorney, which the court declined to admit.
The court declined to give a duress instruction, concluding no reasonable opportunity to escape existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Zayac did not participate knowingly in the crimes.	Zayac joined Gonzalez’s venture and aided the crimes.	Evidence sufficient; rational jury could infersignificant participation.
Admissibility of holster and magazine	Holster/magazine support Gonzalez’s possession and the murder weapon.	Holster/magazine are probative of theory and not unduly prejudicial.	District court did not abuse its discretion; evidence excluded as prejudicial.
Exclusion of attorney’s testimony about fear	Testimony would rebut guilt by showing fear motive.	Testimony is admissible to show state of mind and negate guilt inference.	Harmless error; exclusion did not affect substantial rights.
Duress instruction for kidnapping	Duress defense supported by lack of escape opportunity.	Duress emergency conditions could negate guilt for kidnapping.	No entitlement to a duress instruction; opportunity to escape existed.
Duress instruction for robbery	Duress defense possible for robbery as ongoing offense.	Same as kidnapping; absence of escape undermines guilt.	No entitlement; robbery ongoing and escape opportunity lacking.

United States v. Ogando, 547 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2008) (circumstantial evidence acceptable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
United States v. Reid, 517 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1975) (escape phase of robbery is part of ongoing robbery)
United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (Supreme Court 1999) (kidnapping is a continuing offense; holding persists until free)
Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 2006) (duress negates guilt but requires threat and opportunity to escape)
Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (Supreme Court 2014) (aiding and abetting includes presence and support across phases of a crime)