United States v. Joseph L. Tokash, Mitchell E. Kolb, and John Derel Usher

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that: “We have repeatedly and unquestioningly held that a defendant claiming a defense of necessity or duress must establish that he was under imminent fear of death or serious bodily harm.”
• stating that: “We have repeatedly and unquestion- ingly held that a defendant claiming a defense of necessity or duress must establish that he was under imminent fear of death or serious bodily harm.”
• rejecting an argument that the defendant’s reasonable belief that he had no legal alternatives should suffice to permit a justification defense in the absence of a showing of imminence
• explaining criminal documentary subpoenas “allow[] only for the gathering of 8 specifically identified documents”
• “The legal sufficiency of a proffered defense is a question of law and therefore is reviewed de novo.”
• “The legal sufficiency of a proffered defense is a question of law and therefore is reviewed de novo.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).