US v. Haney (2002)
 Author:  Kenneth P. Ful

Facts:  Mr. Haney and his conspirator, Mr. Francis, were both incarcerated.  Mr. Francis escaped the prison.  Francis was mistakenly identified by the television show America’s Most Wanted as a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist prison gang.

When Francis was apprehended, he was placed back into the prison’s general population, along with African American prisoners who threatened him and sought to harm him for his alleged involvement with the white supremacist organization.

Furthermore, Francis feared the Aryan Brotherhood members as they might believe that he was trying to falsely masquerade as one of their members.  Haney, through his job in the prison laundry, assisted Francis in the procurement of escape paraphernalia.  While walking around on the prison yard for some time, Haney talked Francis out of the escape attempt by convincing him that he should be deliberately apprehended trying to escape.  This would place Francis into segregation without having to appear as a “snitch” to other prisoners from whom he sought protection.

The 2 men were eventually caught in the prison yard and brought to trial on charges of possession of escape paraphernalia, as well as attempted escape.

D argues:  Though he (Haney) was himself not in danger, he should be entitled to present a duress defense as he believed the safety of another was at risk.  The state essentially concedes this point.

P (State) argues:  Haney doesn’t meet the elements of a duress defense as he was not in fear for his own safety.

Procedure:  TC finds both men guilty of possession of escape paraphernalia, but acquitted with respect to the attempted escape charge.  In acquitting Francis of attempted escape, the jury expressly invoked the duress defense.  Haney was not permitted to present a duress defense to the jury at TC.

Ultimate Holding:  Judgment vacated and remanded.

Issue:  Can a defense of duress be extended to the protection of a 3^rd party?  Yes.

Rule of Law:  The law should extend the duress defense to this situation.  If the defense was NOT extended, an actor such as Haney would be unlikely to act where the court would encourage him to have acted.

Rationale:  Under a utilitarian view, the fact that the actor (Haney’s) mind state concurs with his act,   it is justified because it prevents harm of a greater magnitude.