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 Petitioner (J. Craig Jett), according to Petitioner (J. Craig Jett), petitioner argues that federal common law should govern the case.
According to Petitioner (J. Craig Jett), according to Petitioner (J. Craig Jett), petitioner also raises a due‑process issue concerning the allocation of the burden of proof.
Background and question before the Court
According to Mr. Gornstein, the case centers on whether the burden of proving duress should rest on the defendant or the government.
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Petitioner (J. Craig Jett), according to Petitioner (J. Craig Jett), petitioner contends that federal common law governs the dispute.
According to Petitioner (J. Craig Jett), according to Petitioner (J. Craig Jett), petitioner argues that Congress cannot shift the burden of proof away from the defendant under established common‑law principles.
According to Mr. Jett, petitioner maintains that a trial judge has a gate‑keeping role in a duress defense and may exclude evidence insufficient for a jury.
According to Mr. Gornstein, petitioner asserts that the burden of proving duress should be on the defendant, not the government.
Respondent
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the issue is a question of federal common law rather than due process.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy inquired which scenario is easier for the defendant: a due‑process burden on the state or a common‑law burden in an insanity or duress defense.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned the relationship between insanity defenses and mens rea.
Justice Stevens asked how self‑defense fits into the discussion.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the petitioner’s proposed test requires proving non‑duress beyond a reasonable doubt.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 3c7d044d1ab259e93eb5-r1-7aa288736e8ae434.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.