This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to David I. Goldberg (Petitioner), according to David I. Goldberg (Petitioner), petitioner argues that his Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial was denied.
According to David I. Goldberg (Petitioner), according to David I. Goldberg (Petitioner), arizona law defines the cognitive elements of first-degree murder as requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally and knowingly shot and killed a police officer.
According to Mr. Goldberg, goldberg contends that if the State fails to prove Clark knew he was killing a police officer, Clark should be found guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter.
Second-degree murder under Arizona law is defined as intentional murder without premeditation.
The State must prove that Clark intended to kill a police officer, or at least knowingly killed a police officer, unless his mental illness excuses the conduct.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether Clark could be convicted of a lesser degree of murder under Arizona law.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the State bears the burden to show that the victim was a police officer.
- [1] d1ab5bb8fef292421177-r1-2ab18b9c5dbb92d6.pdf, p. 3
- [2] d1ab5bb8fef292421177-r1-2ab18b9c5dbb92d6.pdf, p. 3
- [3] d1ab5bb8fef292421177-r1-2ab18b9c5dbb92d6.pdf, p. 20
- [4] d1ab5bb8fef292421177-r1-2ab18b9c5dbb92d6.pdf, p. 21
- [5] d1ab5bb8fef292421177-r1-2ab18b9c5dbb92d6.pdf, p. 36
- [6] d1ab5bb8fef292421177-r1-2ab18b9c5dbb92d6.pdf, p. 20
- [7] d1ab5bb8fef292421177-r1-2ab18b9c5dbb92d6.pdf, p. 40
Background and question before the Court
The case concerns whether Clark's mental illness excuses the intent required for first-degree murder under Arizona law.
A legal question is whether the State must prove that Clark knowingly killed a police officer, or whether the burden can shift to the defendant to show the victim was not a police officer.
Another question is what degree of murder (first-degree, second-degree, or manslaughter) applies given the evidence of Clark's mental illness.
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to David I. Goldberg (Petitioner), according to David I. Goldberg (Petitioner), petitioner claims his Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial was denied.
According to David I. Goldberg (Petitioner), according to David I. Goldberg (Petitioner), petitioner argues that Arizona law requires proof that the defendant intentionally and knowingly shot a police officer to sustain a first-degree murder conviction.
According to Mr. Goldberg, petitioner maintains that if the State fails to prove Clark knew he was killing a police officer, Clark should be convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter.
Respondent
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether Clark could be convicted of a lesser degree of murder under Arizona law.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the State bears the burden to show that the victim was a police officer.
Justice Scalia noted that the issue does not hinge on pre‑meditation.
Mr. Howe asked whether states have discretion to define the affirmative defense of insanity as policymakers see fit.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
- Second-degree murder
- Intentional murder, without premeditation.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- d1ab5bb8fef292421177-r1-2ab18b9c5dbb92d6.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.