October Term 2005 · Docket 05-7053

Who must prove a defendant acted under duress?

The dispute centers on which party bears the burden of proof for the duress defense.

Official caption
Dixon v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Jett argued the government must disprove duress beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Mr. Gornstein argued the defendant must prove duress because it is an affirmative defense.

    Justice Souter questioned whether the defendant freely chooses to commit the crime.

    Justice Souter asked what the added element of the defense is.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case asks who must prove the facts of a duress defense.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 25, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the government to disprove duress beyond a reasonable doubt.

The government wants the defendant to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues duress is an affirmative defense that excuses criminal conduct.

The government argues the defendant must prove the defense because it excuses serious conduct.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Souter asked what the added element of the defense is.

Justice Souter asked if the defendant chooses to commit the crime despite pressure.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the standard for proving a defendant acted under threat.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON