## Facts

- Otto Bloomquist, an 82-year-old man, waited in his car with about $300 cash while his wife shopped at a mall in Carlsbad, California.
- Larry Wayne LaFleur and Nick Michael Holm approached Bloomquist’s car, displayed firearms, and forced him to surrender control of the vehicle.
- LaFleur drove the car away while Holm held Bloomquist at gunpoint, and they took him to a remote area within Camp Pendleton (De Luz Canyon).
- The defendants led Bloomquist down a deserted path and shot him multiple times, killing him; it was undisputed that both defendants fired shots.
- Each defendant claimed the other initiated the killing and that he shot only because the other forced him at gunpoint.
- A federal grand jury charged both defendants with offenses arising from the robbery, kidnapping, and murder; the trials were severed.
- Holm pleaded guilty to premeditated murder in exchange for dismissal of remaining charges; LaFleur was convicted by a jury on all counts, including premeditated murder and felony murder, kidnapping-related charges, robbery, and firearm-use counts.
- Both defendants received mandatory life sentences for first-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b); LaFleur also received additional sentences on other counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on LaFleur’s theory that he acted under duress.
2. Whether alleged juror misconduct required a new trial for LaFleur.
3. Whether the mandatory life sentence for first-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b) violates the Constitution.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed LaFleur’s convictions and affirmed both defendants’ life sentences.
- The court held that duress is not a defense to first-degree murder and cannot mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter; the requested instruction was properly denied.
- The court upheld the district court’s denial of LaFleur’s motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct, finding no reversible error.
- The court rejected constitutional challenges to § 1111(b)’s mandatory life sentence, including Eighth Amendment and due process arguments.

## Legal Principles

- Duress is not a legally valid defense to first-degree murder under federal law and does not reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.
- Duress and necessity function as “choice of evils” defenses requiring the avoided harm to exceed the caused harm; that comparison does not justify killing an innocent person to avoid threatened death.
- A district court does not err by refusing a voluntary manslaughter instruction where the only asserted mitigating theory is duress in a first-degree murder prosecution.
- Denial of a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct is reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires prejudicial misconduct or improper external influence affecting the verdict.
- Congress may prescribe mandatory, fixed penalties for serious non-capital offenses; a mandatory life term for first-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b) is constitutionally permissible.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed convictions and sentences arising from the armed kidnapping and killing of an elderly victim, holding that duress cannot mitigate first-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter, that alleged jury misconduct did not warrant a new trial, and that § 1111(b)’s mandatory life sentence for first-degree murder is constitutional.


United States v. LaFleur, 971 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1992)