United States v. Willis, 38 F.3d 170, at 179
Kathy Evelyn Willis appealed a court decision which had found her guilty of possessing a firearm during a drug transaction. Willis was also convicted of a drug trafficking crime as she transacted with an undercover agent known as Officer Debbie Bond. The case also involves a man, David Perez who was said to be Willis's lover and the defendant argued that he forced her to transact the drugs, and also the gun under police custody belonged to him. Willis sold Bond ¼ pound of marijuana and at the time of arrest, and was planning to sell four pounds more since she could not access the ten pounds Officer Bond was asking (Westen, & Mangiafico, 2003). The gun charges were pursued because Willis in her statement stated that Perez had bought the gun to protect the transaction, and thus both of them were liable.
Dixon v. United States (05-7053)
The case involves Keshia Dixon who in January 2003 illegally purchased some guns from a Dallas gun store by giving incorrect information willingly. During the trial, Dixon argued that she bought the guns for her boyfriend, Thomas Earl Wright, who was physically abusing her. According to Dixon, Wright had threatened to kill her and her children in case she did not do what he wanted. The court also heard that Wright was a convicted felon and thus was unable to purchase the guns himself, opting to use his girlfriend. Dixon admitted that despite the cycle of abuse being long, she had never sought help from the police or authorities. The district court convicted her under the fifth circuit rule which states that the defendant must be able to provide evidence regarding whether he/she was forced to commit a crime or not (Westen, & Mangiafico, 2003).
Nature and Types of Defenses
In each of the two cases above, criminal defenses were used in an attempt to show that the defendant did not plan to perform the crime in question. Some of the defenses used in the cases include necessity, duress, and automatism. The defense of automatism alleges that the defendant was not in control of their actions during the process and that they were coerced into doing such actions ((Caianiello, 2016). For instance, both Dixon and Willis claimed that the criminal activities they engaged in resulted from physical abuse received from their respective boyfriends. The defense of duress also resembles automatism and occurs in the situation where the defendant was forced to undertake a criminal activity after the threat of death or bodily harm. Dixon argued that her boyfriend threatened to harm her and the children and thus she had no option but purchase the required guns. Willis, on the other hand, also argued that she engaged in the drug trafficking crimes for fear of her boyfriend, David Perez, who had physically assaulted her in numerous times. The defense of necessity argues that an unlawful act can be committed with the intention of averting a greater evil (Caianiello, 2016). For instance, Dixon purchased the guns for her boyfriend since she wanted to avert the evil of her children getting murdered. Willis, on the other hand, engaged in criminal activities since she feared Perez would harm her.
Justification and Excuse
A justification concentrates on giving a rational reason for something done and focuses on the act rather than the person who committed it. A justification of a case shows that it was the right thing to do in the given circumstances or conditions and no alternative was available. In Dixon's case, the defendant can justify the action since she was threatened with bodily harm and death and thus wanted to save life and that of her children. Willis too engaged in drug trafficking after threats from David Perez and thus her actions can be justified.
In a court of law, an Excuse focuses on the actor and shows that even though they may have committed a crime, the blame cannot be placed on the person for various reasons. For instance, the two cases involve threats and coercion and thus the defendants argued that they were forced to commit the crimes since no alternative was available.
Outcomes
In both cases, the district court convicted the defendants arguing that the burden of proof lay with defendant to proof that they did not intend to commit the crime. Dixon was convicted for illegally purchasing guns since she failed in proving to the court that her boyfriend threatened her. In Willis case, she was also convicted by the district court for illegally carrying a firearm and engaging in drug trafficking which was illegal under the law. Both defendants appealed the sentences while arguing that the burden of proof lay with the state prosecution to show that they were guilty (Binder, 2016). While acknowledging the fifth circuit rule, Dixon argued that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that she was guilty after examining whether the threat was genuine or not.
References
Binder, G. R. (2016). Justification and Excuse. Criminal Law, 333-398. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195321203.003.0009
Caianiello, M. (2016). Criminal Appeals in Europe: The Perspective of the Defence. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 24(4), 274-290. doi:10.1163/15718174-24042097
Westen, P., & Mangiafico, J. (2003). The Criminal Defense of Duress: A Justification, Not an Excuse—and Why It Matters. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 6(2), 833-950. doi:10.1525/nclr.2003.6.2.833
