Dixon v. United States
Encyclopedia
Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court
case concerning the level of proof required to prove certain elements of a crime.
s at two gun show
s. In the course of purchasing them, she provided a false address and falsely stated that she was not under indictment
for a felony
. Dixon was arrested, tried, and convicted of one count of receiving a firearm while under indictment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) and eight counts of making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm in violation of § 922(a)(6).
to the jury
, the trial judge required her to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence. After her convinction, Dixon appealed, alleging that this standard was erroneous. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
rejected the appeal. Other circuits having ruled to the contrary, the Supreme Court granted certiorari
to resolve the circuit split.
... may excuse conduct that would otherwise be punishable, but the existence of duress normally does not controvert any of the elements of the offense itself."
As to the second question, that of what standard would be appropriate, Justice Stevens wrote that Congress's lack of direction made the decision difficult. "There is no evidence in the Act’s structure or history that Congress actually considered the question of how the duress defense should work in this context, and there is no suggestion that the offenses at issue are incompatible with a defense of duress. Assuming that a defense of duress is available to the statutory crimes at issue, then, we must determine what that defense would look like as Congress 'may have contemplated' it." The general practice at the time the statute was written (1968) was to use the common law
rule giving the defendant the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Stevens held for the majority that this was the standard that should apply.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
case concerning the level of proof required to prove certain elements of a crime.
Facts
In January 2003 the petitioner, Keshia Dixon, purchased firearmFirearm
A firearm is a weapon that launches one, or many, projectile at high velocity through confined burning of a propellant. This subsonic burning process is technically known as deflagration, as opposed to supersonic combustion known as a detonation. In older firearms, the propellant was typically...
s at two gun show
Gun show
A gun show is a temporary exhibition or gathering in the United States where firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition, literature, knives, jerky, militaria, and miscellaneous collectibles are displayed, bought, sold, traded, and discussed. Gun shows also often include exhibitions related to...
s. In the course of purchasing them, she provided a false address and falsely stated that she was not under indictment
Indictment
An indictment , in the common-law legal system, is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that maintain the concept of felonies, the serious criminal offence is a felony; jurisdictions that lack the concept of felonies often use that of an indictable offence—an...
for a felony
Felony
A felony is a serious crime in the common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors...
. Dixon was arrested, tried, and convicted of one count of receiving a firearm while under indictment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) and eight counts of making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm in violation of § 922(a)(6).
Procedural history
At trial, Dixon admitted that she knew she was under indictment when she bought the weapons and that she knew doing so was a crime; her defense was that she acted under duress because her boyfriend threatened to kill her or hurt her daughters if she did not buy the guns for him. In his chargeJury instructions
Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that jurors should follow when the jury is deciding a civil or criminal case. Jury instructions are given to the jury by the jury instructor, who usually reads them aloud to the jury...
to the jury
Jury
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,...
, the trial judge required her to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence. After her convinction, Dixon appealed, alleging that this standard was erroneous. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Louisiana* Middle District of Louisiana...
rejected the appeal. Other circuits having ruled to the contrary, the Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
to resolve the circuit split.
Issue
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of whether the burden of proof in the jury instruction violated the Constitution's Due Process Clause and, if so, what should the proper burden of proof be?Parties' arguments
Dixon contended that since she was under duress, the government should have to prove that she willingly fulfilled all of the elements of the crime. The government contended they need only prove the elements of the crime, and that Dixon needed to establish duress to be found not guilty.Opinion of the Court
The court sided with the government, holding that "The duress defense, like the defense of necessity that we considered in Bailey v. United StatesBailey v. United States
Bailey v. United States, , interpreted a frequently used section of the federal criminal code. At the time of the decision, imposed a mandatory, consecutive five-year prison term on anyone who "during and in relation to any... drug trafficking crime.....
... may excuse conduct that would otherwise be punishable, but the existence of duress normally does not controvert any of the elements of the offense itself."
As to the second question, that of what standard would be appropriate, Justice Stevens wrote that Congress's lack of direction made the decision difficult. "There is no evidence in the Act’s structure or history that Congress actually considered the question of how the duress defense should work in this context, and there is no suggestion that the offenses at issue are incompatible with a defense of duress. Assuming that a defense of duress is available to the statutory crimes at issue, then, we must determine what that defense would look like as Congress 'may have contemplated' it." The general practice at the time the statute was written (1968) was to use the common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
rule giving the defendant the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Stevens held for the majority that this was the standard that should apply.
Kennedy's concurrence
Justice Kennedy concurred in the result, but suggested that the Court should not limit the standards lower courts might apply. "Absent some contrary indication in the statute, we can assume that Congress would not want to foreclose the courts from consulting these newer sources and considering innovative arguments in resolving issues not confronted in the statute and not within the likely purview of Congress when it enacted the criminal prohibition applicable in the particular case."Alito's concurrence
Justice Alito agreed with Stevens, but would have held that the common law rule applied to all federal crimes absent some indication otherwise. "Although Congress is certainly free to alter this pattern and place one or both burdens on the prosecution, either for all or selected federal crimes, Congress has not done so but instead has continued to revise the federal criminal laws and to create new federal crimes without addressing the issue of duress. Under these circumstances, I believe that the burdens remain where they were when Congress began enacting federal criminal statutes."Dissent
Justice Breyer wrote that the government should have the burden of proof in affirmative defenses. "I agree with the majority that the burden of production lies on the defendant, that here the burden of persuasion issue is not constitutional, and that Congress may allocate that burden as it sees fit. But I also believe that, in the absence of any indication of a different congressional intent, the burden of persuading the jury beyond a reasonable doubt should lie where such burdens normally lie in criminal cases, upon the prosecution."See all
External links
- Dixon v. U.S. at supremecourt.gov (docket information)
- full text (HTML with links to precedent, statutes, and U.S. Constitution)