Karin made illegal firearm purchases at a gun show. At her trial, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. Her lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karin had acted freely. Instead, the judge told the jury that Karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. Who is correct?

The lawyer is correct to ask the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond reasonable doubt

Explanation:

The burden of proof for a criminal trial is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge or Jury has to be sure that the crime was committed based on the evidence before them. The prosecution, in this case, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to successfully find a criminal defendant guilty of a crime. The accused person had no burden to prove that she is innocent of the alleged crime.

In applying the above to the given facts, Karin has no right to prove her innocence. The prosecution has to prove the commission of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt by adducing sufficient evidence. Also, the offense of "Illegal possession of firearms" is a criminal offense that requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and not the "burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence". A preponderance of the evidence is mostly used in civil cases.