3d Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Criminal) 8.03

(Name) has raised as a defense that (he) (she) committed the offense(s)

charged in Count(s) (Nos.) of the indictment because (he) (she) was acting under

duress [was coerced into committing the offenses charged in the indictment]. If you

find that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (name) committed

the offense(s) charged, then you must consider whether (name) committed the

offense(s) under duress [was coerced into committing the offense(s)]. If you find that

the government proved (name) committed the offense(s) charged and you also find

that (name) proved that (he) (she) was acting under duress [was coerced], then you

must find (name) not guilty of the charge(s).

To find that (name) is not guilty of the offense(s) charged in Count(s) (Nos.) of

the indictment because of duress [coercion], you must find that (name) proved by a

preponderance of the evidence each of the following four elements:

First, that (name) was under an immediate, unlawful threat of death or

serious bodily injury to (himself) (herself) or to others;

Second, that (name) had a well-grounded [reasonable] fear [belief] that the

threat would be carried out if (he) (she) did not commit the offense(s)

[criminal acts];

Third, that (name’s) criminal action was directly caused by the need to avoid

the threatened harm and that (name) had no reasonable, lawful opportunity

to avoid the threatened harm without committing the offense(s) [criminal

10

acts]; that is, that (name) had no reasonable lawful opportunity both to refuse

to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm; and

Fourth, that (name) had not recklessly placed (himself) (herself) in a situation

in which (he) (she) would be forced [it was probable that (he) (she) would be put

in a position of having to choose whether] to engage in criminal conduct.

(Name) has the burden of proving the defense of duress [coercion] by a

preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is a lower standard

than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove something by a preponderance of

the evidence means to prove that it is more likely true than not true. If you put the

credible evidence that is favorable to (name) and the credible evidence that is

favorable to the government on opposite sides of a scale, the scale would have to tip

somewhat on (name’s) side in order for you to find that (name) is not guilty because

of duress [coercion]. However, if the scale tips in favor of the government, or if the

credible evidence appears to be equally balanced, or if you cannot say on which side

the credible evidence is heavier, then you must decide that (name) has not proved

the defense of duress [coercion] by a preponderance of the evidence. In making this

determination, you should consider all of the evidence presented during the trial,

regardless of who offered it. You should evaluate the evidence and its credibility

according to the instructions I gave you earlier.

11

You should also remember that the fact that (name) raised this defense does

not relieve the government of the burden of proving all the elements of the offense(s)

charged beyond a reasonable doubt.