context: Moreover, between the time of Jones and Powell's direct appeal, the Supreme Court's precedent has developed significantly in the field of state law affirmative defenses that fully satisfy the Winship baseline demand. This precedent on affirmative defenses provides ready support for concluding that the SJC's due process ruling in Powell's direct appeal is not objectively unreasonable.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 480 U.S. 238, 238-35
citation_a.parenthetical: upholding state statute that placed on the accused the burdens of production and of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt for self-defense as an affirmative defense
citation_a.sentence: See Patterson, 432 U.S. at 210, 97 S.Ct. 2319 (holding that due process does not create “a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.”); see also Martin, 480 U.S. at 238-35, 107 S.Ct. 1098 (upholding state statute that placed on the accused the burdens of production and of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt for self-defense as an affirmative defense).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that due process does not create "a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused."
citation_b.sentence: See Patterson, 432 U.S. at 210, 97 S.Ct. 2319 (holding that due process does not create “a constitutional imperative, operative countrywide, that a State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact constituting any and all affirmative defenses related to the culpability of an accused.”); see also Martin, 480 U.S. at 238-35, 107 S.Ct. 1098 (upholding state statute that placed on the accused the burdens of production and of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt for self-defense as an affirmative defense).