I could definitely be wrong; I am not remotely a lawyer!
It’s my understanding that possession of a weapon during a robbery (even if said weapon is never displayed, even if unloaded, even if fake) elevates the charges to armed robbery, which is prosecuted as a violent crime. I know that there are some people without any violent criminal history who have been handed very stiff sentences for carrying an unloaded or replica firearm during a crime, the idea being that the perceived presence of a deadly weapon can escalate a nonviolent situation to a violent one - that involving a weapon can get people killed, whether or not it is actually used. Having the weapon during the crime makes it a violent crime as far as the law is concerned, and would therefore obviate a duress defense.
That’s my understanding, anyhow. I am definitely open to being incorrect!
(And obviously a prosecutor could simply decline to press charges, or bring lesser charges, or whatever, any of which seem likely results of the hypothetical.)
Interesting. I certainly am no lawyer but this would seem to open a whole slew of other issues.
For example, what would prevent someone for calling a victim and saying “I have your girlfriend, go downtown and rob a bank, bring me money or I’ll kill her”?
In your jurisdiction, the above scenario would absolve the victim as long as he didn’t kill someone in the process?
If a reasonable person would be coerced under the circumstances, including that there was no alternative to committing the crime.
So, if someone just tells you that over the phone, and then hangs up, I would think a reasonable person would try calling their girlfriend before going and committing a robbery.
Add to the scenario clear evidence that the caller has the girlfriend, and the threat is believable, then, yes, there could be a duress defense.
But then there’s the situation in the movie Betrayed, in which the undercover agent has to help with a bank robbery in order to maintain her cover. Her bosses sign off on it, because they don’t yet have everything they want to take down the bad guys, and they figure it’s worth the risk.
That’s fiction. While the FBI might have the power to excuse their own agents from administrative sanctions, I see no reason to presume that they’d be able to make an effective grant of immunity of their own accord unless there is a statute binding on prosecutors allowing them to do so.
I’m not saying it’s not possible, I’m just saying I wouldn’t assume that anything in a “cop drama” (be it film, television, or other media) has a basis in reality, particularly when it comes to nuances of law.
They have no such explicit power, but it is the FBI. The prosecutors need their cooperation and they have a history of protecting their own. I expect the prosecution will avoid charging the FBI agent without clear evidence of his complicity because it would be a tough case to try with a good chance of a hung jury.
But now we’re not talking defenses, we’re talking charging decisions and potentially jury nullification. Sure, I suspect that for all but the grossest errors in judgment, barring some sort of politically motivated charges, a prosecutor wouldn’t charge an undercover FBI agent for a crime (short of—and honestly maybe even including—murder) committed within the scope of that undercover operation.
Even if there is some kind of immunity, absent a statute giving the FBI some kind of protection, it’s going to come from the DA or the US attorney’s office, not from the FBI.
No doubt. Even ‘defense of others’ will be a positive assertion that must be proven in court if it gets there. Unless the undercover agent killed someone in a ‘stand your ground’ state.