## Facts

- Patricia Campbell Hearst was indicted in federal court for armed robbery of a San Francisco bank under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) and 924(c)(1).
- The government presented photographs and eyewitness testimony depicting Hearst as an active participant in the robbery.
- Hearst asserted a duress defense, claiming Symbionese Liberation Army members compelled her participation.
- Over objection, the district court admitted evidence of Hearst’s involvement about one month later in two Los Angeles-area incidents with William and Emily Harris:
  - At a sporting-goods store, Hearst remained outside in a truck and fired an automatic rifle during an attempted apprehension of William Harris, enabling his escape.
  - Later the same day, Hearst and the Harrises stole a van and kidnapped its owner, Thomas Matthews; Matthews testified Hearst had opportunities to escape or communicate for help but did not.
- The jury convicted Hearst on both counts, and the court imposed concurrent sentences totaling seven years and two years.
- Hearst appealed, challenging (1) admission and detail of the later-crimes evidence, (2) exclusion of certain defense evidence, and (3) trial rulings limiting her ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment after she testified.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of Hearst’s subsequent criminal acts was admissible to rebut her duress defense and to prove intent, knowledge, and state of mind rather than criminal disposition.
2. Whether the narrative detail concerning the Los Angeles incidents was so graphic, cumulative, or prejudicial that it should have been excluded.
3. Whether Hearst could reassert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on cross-examination after electing to testify in her own defense.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held the subsequent-acts evidence was properly admitted to rebut duress and to show intent, knowledge, and state of mind, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing probative value against unfair prejudice.
- The court found no reversible error in allowing the level of detail presented about the Los Angeles incidents.
- The court held that by testifying, Hearst waived the privilege against self-incrimination as to proper subjects of cross-examination reasonably related to her direct testimony; the trial court’s rulings on the privilege were not erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of other criminal acts may be admitted for non-propensity purposes (including intent, knowledge, and state of mind) when relevant to issues raised by the defense, and is excluded only if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- When a defendant claims duress, other-acts evidence may be relevant to show voluntariness, continued association with alleged coercers, and missed opportunities to escape or seek help, bearing on the defendant’s claimed compulsion at the time of the charged offense.
- A defendant who testifies waives the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to matters within the proper scope of cross-examination that are reasonably related to the subject matter of the direct examination.
- Appellate review of admission of other-acts evidence and related prejudice is generally for abuse of discretion; reversal requires a showing of reversible error.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Hearst’s bank-robbery convictions, concluding that evidence of later crimes with the same associates was admissible to rebut her duress theory and establish state of mind, that the presentation of those events was not unfairly prejudicial in a way warranting reversal, and that Hearst’s decision to testify waived her Fifth Amendment privilege as to proper cross-examination on related matters.


United States v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1977)