## Facts

- Queen Nwoye and Dr. Ikemba Iweala previously had a brief extramarital affair that ended years before the charged conduct.
- In 2005, after separating from her husband, Nwoye began a romantic relationship with Adriane Osuagwu.
- In early 2006, after Nwoye told Osuagwu about the prior affair, Osuagwu urged Nwoye to contact Iweala and introduce Osuagwu (using a pseudonym) as her “cousin,” initiating a plan to demand money from Iweala by threatening exposure to Iweala’s wife and medical licensing authorities.
- Over about two months, the conspirators made five separate demands, and Nwoye personally collected money from Iweala on multiple occasions, including meetings where she was alone with him.
- In one incident, Nwoye lured Iweala to a hospital parking lot under false pretenses; Osuagwu photographed them to increase leverage, and Iweala fled.
- The conspirators obtained approximately $185,000 before Iweala admitted the affair and contacted the FBI.
- Nwoye later reported Osuagwu to Nigeria’s anti-financial-crime agency.
- At trial, Nwoye testified she participated under duress, claiming Osuagwu physically abused her, threatened to kill her, purported to be an FBI agent, and used constant monitoring (including a Bluetooth earpiece) to control her; she claimed fear of reporting to police.
- The district court allowed testimony about abuse and threats but denied Nwoye’s request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of duress; the jury convicted her of conspiracy to extort.
- On appeal, Nwoye challenged the denial of the duress instruction and separately challenged the venue instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Nwoye, entitled her to a jury instruction on duress.
2. Whether the district court plainly erred in instructing the jury on venue.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held Nwoye was not entitled to a duress instruction because the evidence could not support a finding that she lacked reasonable legal alternatives to participating in the scheme.
- The court held there was no plain error in the venue instruction.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a duress instruction only if the evidence, viewed in the defendant’s favor, could permit a reasonable jury to find each element of duress.
- Federal duress requires proof of: (1) an unlawful, present, imminent threat inducing a well-grounded fear of death or serious bodily injury; (2) the defendant did not recklessly or negligently place herself in a situation where coercion was probable; and (3) no reasonable legal alternative to committing the crime.
- The “no reasonable legal alternative” element is not satisfied when the defendant’s own account shows practical opportunities to seek help (for example, reporting to police or disclosing to others) during an extended course of criminal conduct.
- Venue must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and unpreserved challenges to venue instructions are reviewed for plain error.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that, even crediting Nwoye’s testimony about abuse and threats, the two-month duration and structure of the extortion conspiracy provided reasonable legal alternatives to continued participation, so the district court properly refused a duress instruction; the court also rejected her venue-instruction challenge under plain-error review and affirmed the conviction.


United States v. Nwoye, 663 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2011)