The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D purchased multiple firearms at two gun shows, during the course of which she provided an incorrect address and falsely stated that she was not under indictment for a felony. D was indicted and convicted on one count of receiving a firearm while under indictment and eight counts of making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm. D admitted that she knew she was under indictment when she made the purchases and that she knew doing so was a crime. D claimed 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. D contends that the instructions to the jury erroneously required her to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence instead of requiring P to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not act under duress. D contends that her defense 'controverted the mens rea required for conviction' and therefore the Due Process Clause requires P to retain the burden of persuasion on that element. The court of appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.