Can defendants charged with escape, air piracy, and use of a weapon to commit a crime raise a necessity or duress defense to justify their actions?

Ronald McIntosh, an inmate at F.C.I. Pleasanton, disappeared on October 28, 1986, during an unescorted transfer. On November 5, 1986, McIntosh returned to the facility in a helicopter, landing in the recreation yard, and helped Samantha Lopez escape from federal custody. The pair remained at large for ten days before authorities apprehended them at a Sacramento shopping mall while they were purchasing wedding rings. Following their capture, McIntosh was indicted on charges of air piracy, use of a weapon to commit a crime, and aiding and abetting Lopez's escape. Lopez was separately charged with escape from federal custody.

Both defendants asserted necessity/duress defenses, claiming their actions were motivated by threats of death or serious bodily injury. This defense suggested they believed the escape was necessary to avoid imminent harm while in federal custody. The case involved unusual circumstances where an escaped prisoner returned to orchestrate another inmate's escape via helicopter before both were recaptured while engaged in personal activities.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Prior to trial, the government filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent the defendants from presenting necessity/duress defense evidence to the jury. In response to this motion, both defendants submitted in camera offers of proof in an attempt to establish a prima facie case for the necessity/duress defense. The court then reviewed these offers of proof to determine their legal sufficiency and to assess whether the necessity/duress defense could be applicable in this case.

(Lynch, J.)

Yes. Defendants charged with escape, air piracy, and use of a weapon may raise a necessity or duress defense, but they must meet specific evidentiary requirements for each charge. The necessity defense operates as a justification that negates criminal liability when a defendant commits an otherwise illegal act to prevent a greater harm. For the escape charge, defendants must present sufficient evidence showing they faced specific threats, had no reasonable opportunity to seek protection from authorities, and planned to immediately report to proper authorities once they reached safety. For more serious charges like air piracy and weapons use, a higher evidentiary threshold applies—defendants must conclusively demonstrate they exhausted all reasonable legal alternatives before resorting to criminal conduct. This distinction recognizes the varying degrees of public danger posed by different offenses. The necessity defense functions similarly to other justification defenses in that it completely exonerates the defendant rather than merely excusing their conduct. This distinction carries significant implications for accomplice liability: if the principal actor's conduct is justified by necessity, an accomplice cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting that justified action. The defense requires a fact-specific inquiry examining the circumstances confronting each defendant, the reasonableness of their belief that criminal action was necessary, and whether legal alternatives existed. Once defendants present sufficient evidence to raise the defense, the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove necessity beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of their case.