United States v. Lopez, No. 16-10261 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction for making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm, aggravated identity theft, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant raised a claim of duress, contending that she purchased the handgun with her identical twin sister's ID in violation of her probation because her ex-boyfriend threatened to harm her and her family.
The panel joined the weight of authority in holding that expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome may be used by a defendant to support her duress defense and rehabilitate her credibility. Therefore, the panel held that the district court committed legal error in precluding defendant's expert witness from testifying and concluded that this decision was prejudicial to her defense. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a video of defendant's entire jail interview.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a conviction for false statement during the purchase of a firearm, aggravated identity theft, and felon in possession of a firearm, in a case in which the only issue before the jury was the affirmative defense of duress. The panel held that expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome may be used by a defendant to support her duress defense and rehabilitate her credibility, that the district court therefore erred in precluding the defendant’s expert witness from testifying, and that this decision was prejudicial to her defense. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a video of the defendant’s entire interview in jail with ATF agents, where the evidence would have consisted nearly exclusively of hearsay statements, including those made by the defendant. Dissenting, Judge Rawlinson could not say that the district judge abused his discretion in determining that the expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome was not admissible in the context of establishing a duress defense, as opposed to the usual context of its admission—to establish self-defense. The panel remanded for a new trial. UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.