Justic Robert Boochever

             Juan Manuel Contento-Pachon, Justice Boochever reversed and remanded the case. This required the district court that initially heard the case to retry the case and allow the evidence of the defense of duress to be presented to the jury at retrial. Justice Boochever reversed because he found sufficient evidence of duress to present a triable issue of fact. Justice Boochever argues that evidence provided in this case could potentially be found credible if decided by a jury. Therefore the defendant has the right to a trial by jury. His reasoning for this reverse was based on the three elements of duress. .
             The district court had found Contento-Pachon's proof of duress insufficient because he failed to provide proof of two elements: immediacy and inescapability. For the element of Immediacy "The district court found that the initial threats were not immediate because they were conditioned on defendant's failure to cooperate in the future and did not place defendant and his family in immediate danger."() On the issue of inescapability, the district court found that because "he was not physically restrained at the time prior to swallowing the balloons, he could have sought help from the police or fled "().
             Justice Boochever found sufficient evidence of both immediacy and inescapability. His findings on these two issues of immediacy and inescapability are as follows. On the element of immediacy, Justice Boochevers was vague. He only provided a definition of immediacy and his support of the evidence that proved the threats placed on Contento-Pachon had the potential to be carried out and were specific. .
             Immediacy requires evidence of a present, immediate, or impending threat of injury with specific threat of injury. The district court ruled that the threats were not immediate. In the definition provided by Justice Boochever, immediacy also includes impending threats and is not limited to solely immediate threats.