    "Eddy offered to testify that the CIA and the FBI forced him to rob
    three banks by transmitting painful electronic waves, shocks and
    threatening messages to him by means of two receiving devices which were
    implanted in his nose and pancreas during a previous imprisonment. Eddy
    offered to support this testimony by showing a burn mark on his ankle
    caused by the electronic shocks and hundreds of letters addressed to
    high-ranking government officials, including President Bush, complaining
    of this abuse. He also demanded that the district court subpoena two or
    three thousand unspecified witnesses to testify concerning his alleged
    mistreatment, the surgery to implant the devices, and CIA-funded
    electronic mind control experiments at Stanford University Medical
    Center and other places. "

    ~~~~~~~~

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

    v.

    ROBERT WAYNE EDDY, Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 90-50627

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32618

    November 23, 1992, ** Submitted

    ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
    December 1, 1992, Filed

    NOTICE:  [*1]   THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLICATION AND
    MAY NOT BE CITED TO OR BY THE COURTS OF THIS CIRCUIT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
    BY THE 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.

    SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reported as Table Case at 980 F.2d 739, 1992 U.S.
    App. LEXIS 36075.

    PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    Central District of California. D.C. No. CR-90-049-KN-1. David V.
    Kenyon, District Judge, Presiding

    DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

    JUDGES: Before: SCHROEDER, FLETCHER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

    OPINION: MEMORANDUM

    Robert Wayne Eddy appeals his conviction following a jury trial for
    three counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and
    (d). Eddy contends that the district court erred by granting the
    prosecution's motion in limine to preclude evidence supporting a duress
    defense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

    Whether a defendant has made a threshold showing of each element of the
    duress defense is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v.
    Williams, 791 F.2d 1383, 1388 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 869
    (1986); United States v. Charmley, 764 F.2d 675, 676 (9th Cir. 1985).
    Although factfinding is within the purview of the jury, if [*2]  the
    evidence proffered by a defendant, accepted as true, does not establish
    all of the elements of a defense, then as a matter of law the trial
    judge may exclude it. United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th
    Cir. 1985); see Charmley, 764 F.2d at 675-76.

    To establish a duress defense, the defendant must show prima facie
    evidence that: (1) the threat was immediate and involved death or
    serious bodily injury; (2) the fear it caused was well-grounded; (3)
    there was no reasonable opportunity to avoid or escape the threatened
    harm; and (4) the defendant submitted to proper authorities after
    reaching a position of safety. United States v. Keller, 902 F.2d 1391,
    1395 (9th Cir. 1990); see Charmley, 764 F.2d at 675. The testimony given
    or proffered must meet a minimum standard as to each element of the
    defense. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 415 (1980) (defendants'
    vague and self-serving statements and ambiguous conduct do not support
    finding of fourth element of duress defense); see United States v.
    Hernandez, 608 F.2d 741, 750 (9th Cir. 1979) [*3]  (testimony that
    defendant was depressed and nervous, told his wife that their family was
    in danger, and possessed a note containing vague threats failed to
    establish present danger or well-grounded fear).

    Eddy contends that there was sufficient evidence to support a prima
    facie duress defense and that the district court erred by excluding it
    from the jury. At the hearing on the motion in limine, Eddy offered to
    testify that the CIA and the FBI forced him to rob three banks by
    transmitting painful electronic waves, shocks and threatening messages
    to him by means of two receiving devices which were implanted in his
    nose and pancreas during a previous imprisonment. Eddy offered to
    support this testimony by showing a burn mark on his ankle caused by the
    electronic shocks and hundreds of letters addressed to high-ranking
    government officials, including President Bush, complaining of this
    abuse. He also demanded that the district court subpoena two or three
    thousand unspecified witnesses to testify concerning his alleged
    mistreatment, the surgery to implant the devices, and CIA-funded
    electronic mind control experiments at Stanford University Medical
    Center and other places.  [*4]

    Nonetheless, Eddy provided no objective or reliable evidence in support
    of his duress defense. He offered inconsistent accounts of when and
    where the operations to implant the electronic devices took place, and
    at another point suggested that he might be receiving the wave lengths
    in the absence of any implantations. Although medical records indicated
    that Eddy's spleen and part of his pancreas were removed during surgery
    for a traumatic injury in 1981, neither the records, examinations by
    several physicians nor metal detectors in prison substantiated his
    claims regarding the implanted devices. At the hearing on the motion in
    limine, Eddy failed to identify specifically any of the witnesses to be
    subpoenaed and did not provide any reason to believe that their
    testimony would confirm the truth of his allegations. Further, Eddy's
    letters and testimony, while perhaps probative of his beliefs and fear
    regarding the electronically induced shocks, do not establish the
    existence of an actual threat or show the fear to be well-founded. In
    fact, a psychiatric report conducted prior to the hearing concluded that
    Eddy was suffering from "a Paranoid Disorder characterized by a
    well-capsulized [*5]  and consistent delusional system." n1 Eddy's vague
    and unsubstantiated statements that the CIA and FBI forced him to rob
    banks by means of painful electronic signals fails to meet even a
    minimum standard as to the elements of the duress defense. See Bailey,
    444 U.S. at 415; Hernandez, 608 F.2d at 750. Accordingly, the district
    court did not err when it concluded that Eddy had not shown prima facie
    evidence of duress and excluded that defense as a matter of law. See
    Charmley, 764 F.2d at 675-76.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    n1 The report determined that Eddy was competent to stand trial,
    indicating that, apart from his delusions, Eddy's reasoning was
    unimpaired. The report also noted that a psychiatric examination
    conducted during Eddy's previous incarceration found that he manipulated
    his symptoms to get improved conditions for himself. Eddy stipulated at
    the pre-trial hearing that he was competent to stand trial and did not
    desire to raise an insanity defense.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*6]