## Facts

- Leonard P. Riffe, an inmate at a Michigan maximum-security prison, participated with Stephanie Kania in a plan to bring marijuana into the prison.
- Packages containing marijuana (or money to buy it) were sent to Kania’s post office box by an unidentified coconspirator.
- Riffe contacted Kania and directed her to retrieve the packages and deliver the marijuana to a prison guard at a location outside the prison.
- The guard then delivered the marijuana to Riffe inside the facility.
- Kania pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government; Riffe proceeded to a jury trial.
- Riffe asserted duress, claiming other inmates threatened to kill him if he did not obtain marijuana to repay a drug debt.
- Riffe presented evidence that seeking protection from prison officials would likely increase his danger, including retaliation and risks tied to protective segregation and expected identification of gang members.

## Issues

1. Whether a prisoner is categorically barred from receiving a duress jury instruction unless he first sought protection or relief from prison authorities, even when evidence indicates that doing so would likely result in serious injury or death.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported convictions for aiding and abetting use of the mails to facilitate marijuana distribution in prison where Riffe did not personally mail the packages.

## Decision

- The court held the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on duress based on a categorical requirement that Riffe first seek help from prison authorities.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aiding and abetting the use of the mails to facilitate the distribution of marijuana (Counts 2 and 3).
- The court affirmed the sufficiency ruling but vacated and remanded for further proceedings because the duress instruction issue required reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a recognized defense when evidence, viewed favorably to the defendant, would permit a reasonable jury to find each element of the defense.
- Under the Sixth Circuit’s duress framework, the “no reasonable, legal alternative” requirement cannot be applied as a per se rule that a prisoner must seek official protection in all cases.
- When evidence supports that resort to authorities would likely expose the defendant to serious harm, whether a reasonable legal alternative existed is a factual question for the jury.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) may be established by intentional participation that facilitates use of the mails in a drug scheme, even if the defendant did not personally perform the mailing.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that an inmate who presents evidence that seeking official protection would likely increase the risk of serious harm is entitled to have the jury consider duress, rejecting a categorical “report-to-authorities” prerequisite, while also upholding the sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting mail-facilitation convictions tied to coordinating a prison drug-smuggling scheme.


United States v. Riffe, 28 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 1994)