JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Supreme Court considers duress defense, federal question, death penalty cases
Jeannie Shawl at 7:39 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday considered whether a criminal defendant must prove a duress defense by a preponderance of the evidence or, instead, if the government must prove absence of duress beyond a reasonable doubt. In Dixon v. United States [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], Dixon was charged with firearms offenses and at trial raised battered woman's syndrome [Wikipedia backgrounder] as a defense. The trial court instructed the jury that Dixon bore the burden of persuasion and the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed her conviction [opinion, PDF], ruling that duress is an affirmative defense. During arguments Tuesday, the justices noted that the 29 states who put the burden of persuasion on prosecutors have not experienced problems with that scheme. AP has more.

The Court also heard arguments in Empire HealthChoice Assurance v. McVeigh [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], where the Court will decide whether federal question jurisdiction exists over a suit by a federal government contractor to enforce, on behalf of the United States, a provision in a health benefits plan for federal employees that is part of a government contract established pursuant to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act. The Second Circuit found no federal question jurisdiction [opinion, PDF] in the case, where Empire sued for reimbursement of insurance benefits paid under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program [OPM materials].

Finally, the Court heard re-arguments [JURIST report] in Kansas v. Marsh [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], concerning whether a sentencing scheme is constitutional when it imposes the death penalty when jurors found mitigating and aggravating evidence to be equal, in order to allow Justice Alito to participate in consideration of the case. The Court first heard arguments in December [JURIST report], but were unable to reach a decision before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired from the bench. On re-argument, Alito asked several questions, but didn't give any indication of how he might vote. AP has more.






Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 US House votes for 20-week abortion ban
3:57 PM ET, June 19

 UK Supreme Court allows families of Iraq soldiers to sue government
2:28 PM ET, June 19

 AI: China mining companies contributing to Congo rights abuses
12:51 PM ET, June 19

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

Is Egypt's Stance on the Blue Nile Dam Legally Justified?
DOMESTIC
Zeray Yihdego
University of Aberdeen School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org