The rule of lenity is undergoing a renaissance. Lenity requires courts to construct ambiguous penal statutes narrowly. In recent years, scholars have sought to reinvigorate lenity as an important tool for combatting the American crisis in overcriminalization. At the same time, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions debating the breadth and importance of lenity. This Article contributes a new and unexplored dimension to the growing scholarship on lenity by considering lenity’s implications for affirmative defenses.

A [Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] is sufficient to create a duty. The documentary evidence and testimony regarding the SOP and how it is carried out on a daily basis was sufficient to establish a duty in this case.

Every defendant has the absolute right not to testify. A defendant may choose not to testify for any number of innocent reasons, including a fear of not coming across well due to poor self-presentation skills, nervousness about public speaking, or because their lawyer has advised them not to testify for reasons unrelated to their guilt or innocence in this case. When you decide the case, you must not consider the fact that the defendant did not testify. It must not affect your verdict in any way.