Motion in Limine Expert Testimony.

Byline: Derek Hawkins

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Marjory Dingwall

Case No.: 20-1394

Officials: WOOD, HAMILTON, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Motion in Limine Expert Testimony

Marjory Dingwall was charged with three counts of robbery and three counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. She admits the robberies but claims she committed them under duress, in fear of brutal violence at the hands of her abusive boyfriend, Aaron Stanley. Dingwall filed a motion in limine seeking a ruling on evidence to support her duress defense, including expert evidence on battering and its effects.

The duress defense has two elements: reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury, and the absence of reasonable, legal alternatives to committing the crime. United States v. Sawyer, 558 F.3d 705, 711 (7th Cir. 2009). The district court denied Dingwall's motion, finding that her evidence could not meet either requirement. Dingwall then pleaded guilty to three counts of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, but she reserved her right to appeal the decision on the motion in limine.

We see the question differently than the district court did, but we recognize that the rare cases like this are close and difficult, often dividing appellate panels. Dingwall surely faces challenges in demonstrating both imminence and no reasonable alternatives: Stanley was not physically present for any of the robberies, Dingwall actually held a gun, and there is a dispute about whether Stanley threatened harm if she did not commit these specific offenses. Those facts present questions for a jury, however. We join the Ninth...