United States v. Nwoye
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
663 F.3d 460 (2011)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Queen Nwoye (defendant) worked at a hospital and began having an extramarital affair with Ikemba Iweala, who also worked there. They broke up but remained friends. Nwoye separated from her husband and began dating Adriane Osuagwu, whom she told about her affair with Iweala. Osuagwu urged her to call Iweala and put him in touch with Osuagwu. That conversation was the beginning of an extortion scheme in which Nwoye and Osuagwu coordinated to extract $185,000 from Iweala over time by threatening to expose his affair with Nwoye to his wife. Although Nwoye and Osuagwu lived together, Nwyoe sometimes met with Iweala alone to collect the money she and Osuagwu extorted from him. Nwyoe also went to work and nursing classes. Iweala eventually reported the scheme to police, and Nwoye was charged with conspiracy to extort money. At her trial, Nwoye testified that she did not want to extort Iweala but was forced to do so by Osuagwu, who beat her and threatened to kill her. She also testified that Osuagwu told her that he was a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), so Nwoye did not feel comfortable complaining to police, as she believed all law enforcement was corrupt. The trial court denied Nwoye’s request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of duress. She was convicted and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
Dissent (Tatel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.