## Facts

- Queen Nwoye was charged and tried in federal court for conspiring to extort money from a doctor with whom she had previously had an affair.
- The alleged conspiracy involved Nwoye and her boyfriend, Adriane Osuagwu.
- At trial, Nwoye testified she acted under duress, stating Osuagwu repeatedly beat her, threatened to kill her, and threatened further violence if she did not participate.
- Defense counsel pursued a duress theory but did not offer expert testimony concerning battered woman syndrome (BWS).
- The district court denied Nwoye’s request for a duress jury instruction, concluding she had not produced evidence that she lacked a reasonable alternative to committing the offense.
- The jury convicted Nwoye; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, though the appellate court noted that BWS expert testimony could have affected whether a duress instruction was warranted.
- Nwoye then sought post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to present BWS expert testimony.
- At a § 2255 evidentiary hearing, an expert testified Nwoye had been battered in her relationship with Osuagwu, but the district court denied relief for lack of prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether, assuming deficient performance, trial counsel’s failure to introduce BWS expert testimony created Strickland prejudice by likely affecting entitlement to a duress instruction and the trial outcome.
2. Whether BWS expert testimony is relevant and admissible to support the federal duress elements, including the “no reasonable alternative” requirement, in this case.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the denial of § 2255 relief and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court assumed arguendo that counsel’s performance was deficient and held Nwoye satisfied Strickland’s prejudice prong.
- The court concluded BWS expert testimony was relevant and admissible to explain how abuse may shape a defendant’s perceptions of threats and perceived ability to safely avoid compliance.
- The court held that, with BWS testimony alongside Nwoye’s account of abuse, she likely would have been entitled to a duress instruction.
- The court found a reasonable probability that a properly instructed jury, informed by the expert testimony, could have acquitted or harbored reasonable doubt.
- A dissent would have affirmed, disputing that the omitted expert testimony undermined confidence in the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Under Strickland v. Washington, ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice; prejudice is a reasonable probability of a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.
- In assessing prejudice from omitted evidence, courts consider whether the missing proof would likely have affected key trial rulings, including entitlement to a defense instruction.
- Federal duress generally requires proof of an imminent threat, a well-grounded fear the threat will be carried out, and no reasonable legal alternative to committing the crime.
- Expert testimony concerning BWS may be admissible as specialized knowledge to help the factfinder assess reasonableness and perceived alternatives in a duress claim.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that the failure to present BWS expert testimony prejudiced Nwoye because it likely would have supported a duress instruction and could have changed the verdict, requiring reversal of the denial of § 2255 relief and a remand for further proceedings.


United States v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2016)