## Facts

- Robert M. Haney and Tony S. Francis were federal inmates at USP Florence, Colorado, and close associates.
- After Francis escaped and was recaptured, a televised report falsely portrayed him as an Aryan Brotherhood leader.
- Following a prison lockdown amid rising racial tension, three inmates confronted Francis, referenced the broadcast, and threatened to kill him.
- Francis believed he needed to escape to avoid imminent harm and sought Haney’s assistance.
- Haney helped gather items characterized as escape paraphernalia.
- Haney and Francis believed alternatives such as protective custody or alerting staff were unsafe because they feared retaliation for being labeled informants.
- On the planned night, Haney urged Francis to ensure discovery so officials would separate Francis from the population without requiring him to report threats; Francis left the items in the yard, and officials found them.
- The government charged both men with possession of escape paraphernalia (18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2)) and attempted escape (18 U.S.C. § 751(a)).
- Both were acquitted of attempted escape and convicted of possession of escape paraphernalia; at Francis’s trial the jury received a duress instruction, but at Haney’s trial the court refused a requested duress instruction.
- Haney received a consecutive 36-month sentence and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on duress for possession of escape paraphernalia under 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2).
2. Whether duress may be asserted when threats were directed primarily at a co-actor, if the defendant claims he faced the same immediate risk because of that relationship.
3. Whether the panel needed to reach Haney’s claim for a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.

## Decision

- The court held Haney was entitled to present a duress defense and have the jury instructed, even though the threats were directed primarily at Francis, because a jury could find Haney faced the same danger due to his association with Francis.
- The court concluded the evidence could satisfy the traditional duress elements, including immediacy and lack of a reasonable opportunity to avoid harm, given the prison context and fear of retaliation for seeking official protection.
- The conviction for possession of escape paraphernalia was vacated and the case remanded.
- The panel did not reach the acceptance-of-responsibility sentencing issue.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a requested duress instruction when evidence would permit a rational jury to find: (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, (2) a well-grounded belief the threat will be carried out, and (3) no reasonable opportunity to avoid the threatened harm.
- Duress is not categorically limited to threats aimed directly at the defendant or immediate family; it may apply where threats are directed at a third party or co-actor if the defendant can show he personally faced immediate serious harm because of the relationship.
- Whether alleged alternatives are “reasonable” may depend on context; in prison, fear of retaliation for seeking protection or informing staff may support submitting the duress question to the jury rather than resolving it as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court vacated Haney’s conviction because the evidence could support a duress defense tied to threats against his associate, and the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on duress improperly prevented the jury from deciding whether Haney’s conduct was excused.


United States v. Haney, 287 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2002)