Oyinkansola Lapite January 28th 2016 MFC 483
Case Title and Citation: United States of America v.Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691
Relevant Case Facts: The defendant Juan Manuel Pachon received a job offered from one of his passenger named Jorge to be a driver of a privately own car. Pachon expressed an interest in the job and decided to meet both Jorge and the owner of the car. The next day Jorge proposed that Pachon swallowed cocaine and transport to the United States, and that if he mentioned the proposition to anyone he would get in trouble. A week later Pachon told Jorge he would not be transporting the drugs. Jorge replied to Pachon by mentioned important and personal …show more content…
Although it has not been expressly limited, this fourth element seems to be required only in prison escape cases. United States v. Peltier, 693 F.2d 96, 98 (9th Cir.1982) (per curium); United States v. Michelson, 559 F.2d 567, 570 (9th Cir.1977). The court held that a defendant who has acted under a urgent fear of immediate harm with no opportunity to escape may. Then the court looked at necessity defense, which is ally invoked when the defendant acted in the interest of the general welfare. From cases such as United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1008-09 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 402, 66 L.Ed.2d 247 (1980); United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 517 (9th Cir.1972). Which Pachon’s acts were allegedly coerced by human, not physical forces. In addition, he did not act to promote the general welfare. Therefore, the necessity defense was not available to him. Pachon-Pachon mischaracterized evidence of duress as evidence of necessity. The district court correctly disallowed his use of the necessity
Case Title and Citation: United States of America v.Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691
Relevant Case Facts: The defendant Juan Manuel Pachon received a job offered from one of his passenger named Jorge to be a driver of a privately own car. Pachon expressed an interest in the job and decided to meet both Jorge and the owner of the car. The next day Jorge proposed that Pachon swallowed cocaine and transport to the United States, and that if he mentioned the proposition to anyone he would get in trouble. A week later Pachon told Jorge he would not be transporting the drugs. Jorge replied to Pachon by mentioned important and personal …show more content…
Although it has not been expressly limited, this fourth element seems to be required only in prison escape cases. United States v. Peltier, 693 F.2d 96, 98 (9th Cir.1982) (per curium); United States v. Michelson, 559 F.2d 567, 570 (9th Cir.1977). The court held that a defendant who has acted under a urgent fear of immediate harm with no opportunity to escape may. Then the court looked at necessity defense, which is ally invoked when the defendant acted in the interest of the general welfare. From cases such as United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1008-09 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 402, 66 L.Ed.2d 247 (1980); United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 517 (9th Cir.1972). Which Pachon’s acts were allegedly coerced by human, not physical forces. In addition, he did not act to promote the general welfare. Therefore, the necessity defense was not available to him. Pachon-Pachon mischaracterized evidence of duress as evidence of necessity. The district court correctly disallowed his use of the necessity