Did the lower courts err in precluding petitioner's duress defense at trial?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the lower courts err in their preclusion of Petitioner's duress ; defense at trial, given the preexisting caselaw, wherein the Jury, not oO _ the Court, is to try the facts of said defense? See, United States v. Paul, 110 F.3d 869, 871 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Contento-Pancho 723, F.2d 691, 695 (9th Cir. 1984); and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 523 (1974). ; ; : II. | The lower courts affirmed the government's argument that a duress defense : , ‘necessisated a fourth element of surrendering to authorities once , : reaching a position of safety, despite the 9th Circuit Court's ruling ; that such an element is "...required only in prison escape cases...," wherein other circumstances "...the defense has been defined to include : only three elements." See, United States v. Contento-Pancho, 723 F.2d 691, 695 (9th Cir. 1984). With this established precedent, were the Lower ; courts' affirmations of these arguments, which the ruling to preclude, ; Oo Petitioner’s duress defense hinged upon, erroneous? oe III. | Both the pretrial and trial process contained additional cumulative errors, namely, access issues to protective order discovery, the Trial Judge's capricious ruling on the role of stand-by counsel, the improperly admitted and highly prejudical 404(b) act evidence, and the Trial Judge's ; . frequent interruptions of Petitioner which was likewise prejudical before . , the Jury. These errors were deemed harmless by the 2d. Circuit Court, despite not having proven as such beyond a reasonable doubt. See, United ; _ States _v. Lombardozzi, 491 F.3d 61, 76 (2d Cir. 2007); and United States , . Vv. Felder, 993 F.3d 57, 71 (2d Cir. 2021). Thus, would this neglect of , , , precedure not contribute to the violation of Petitioner's right to due . process under the Fifth Amendment and, therefore, also his right to a ~ fair trial under the Sixth Amendment? a