11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) S16

The Defendant claims that if he committed the acts charged in the

indictment, he did so only because he was forced to commit the crime. If you

conclude that the Government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the

Defendant committed the crime as charged, you must then consider whether the

Defendant should nevertheless be found “not guilty” because his actions were

justified by duress or coercion.

To excuse a criminal act, the Defendant must prove by a preponderance of

the evidence:

First: That there was an unlawful and present, immediate, and

impending threat of death or serious bodily harm to the

Defendant or another;

Second: That the Defendant’s own negligent or reckless conduct did

not create a situation where the Defendant would be forced to

engage in a crime;

Third: That the Defendant had no reasonable legal alternative to

violating the law; and

Fourth: That avoiding the threatened harm caused the criminal action.

A “preponderance of the evidence” is enough evidence to persuade you that

the Defendant’s claim is more likely true than not true.

If you find that the Defendant has proven each of these elements by a

preponderance of the evidence, you must find the Defendant not guilty.