Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

statutory exception in each Controlled Substances Act pros-
ecution. 

Section 885’s second purpose refers only to “the burden of 
going forward with the evidence,” i.e., the burden of produc-
tion.  See Black’s Law Dictionary, at 244.  It says nothing
regarding the distinct issue of the burden of persuasion— 
i.e., the burden of proving a lack of authorization.  Cf. Di-
rector, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Green-
wich Collieries, 512 U. S. 267, 274 (1994) (“our opinions con-
sistently  distinguis[h]  between  burden  of  proof,  which  we
defined as burden of persuasion, and . . . the burden of pro-
duction or the burden of going forward with the evidence”); 
see also Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U. S. 49, 56 (2005).  Section 
885 can thus be understood as providing a presumptive de-
vice, akin to others we have recognized in the criminal con-
text, which “merely shift[s] the burden of production to the 
defendant, following the satisfaction of which the ultimate
burden of persuasion returns to the prosecution.”  County 
Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen, 442 U. S. 140, 157–158, n. 16 
(1979); see Parker v. Matthews, 567 U. S. 37, 42, n. 1 (2012) 
(per curiam).  Contrary to the concurrence’s assertion, see 
post,  at  9–11,  the  differences  between  these  two  burdens 
and the use of procedural mechanisms to shift one burden 
but not the other are well established.  See, e.g., 29 Am. Jur. 
2d Evidence §207, p. 246 (2019) (“due process does not pro-
hibit the use of a . . . procedural device that shifts to a de-
fendant the burden of producing some evidence contesting 
a fact that may otherwise be inferred, provided the prose-
cution retains the ultimate burden of proof ”); 1 W. LaFave, 
Substantive Criminal Law §1.8(a), p. 102 (3d ed. 2018) (sim-
ilar).  In a §841 prosecution, then, once the defendant sat-
isfies the initial burden of production by producing evidence
of authorization, the burden of proving a lack of authoriza-
tion  shifts  back  to  the  Government.    And,  as  with  §885’s
indictment-related purpose, §885’s burden-related purpose
simply relieves the Government from having to disprove, at