United States v. Daniel Delaney, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10931

A federal prisoner convicted of unarmed robbery was in a two-person cell in segregation when he strangled his cellmate.
He was prosecuted for first-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), with potential death penalty; second-degree murder carries life imprisonment; voluntary manslaughter carries 15 years.
The sole appellate issue was whether the jury should have found heat of passion and thus convicted only of voluntary manslaughter.
The victim was a known child molester, lying on the cell floor with bindings and multiple nonfatal injuries inflicted by the defendant; the victim appeared to offer little resistance due to being older and weaker.
The defendant told guards and later an FBI agent that he attacked after some thought; at trial, he testified he snapped after learning of the cellmate’s background, without real intent to kill.
The judge’s instructions tied heat of passion to intentional killing without malice, and distinguished malice aforethought and premeditation in ways the court found problematic.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether heat of passion negates malice and supports voluntary manslaughter	Defendant acted in heat of passion after discovering molestation, lacking malice.	There was forethought and calculated action; not merely heat of passion.	No; substantial evidence of forethought supported murder verdict.
Whether the government must prove absence of heat of passion beyond a reasonable doubt	The defense of heat of passion must be negated beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.	Once defendant presents evidence of heat of passion, the government bears the burden to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.	The government bears burden to negate heat of passion once there is some evidentiary support.

United States v. Serawop, 410 F.3d 656 (10th Cir.2005) (defines heat-of-passion concept in context of murder)
United States v. Velazquez, 246 F.3d 204 (2d Cir.2001) (heat-of-passion framework in federal murder context)
United States v. Browner, 889 F.2d 549 (5th Cir.1989) (heat-of-passion analysis and malice concepts)
United States v. Fountain, 642 F.2d 1083 (7th Cir.1981) (early articulation of heat-of-passion issues)
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (Supreme Court 1975) (due-process burden related to proving absence of heat of passion)
United States v. Lofton, 776 F.2d 918 (10th Cir.1985) (burden shifting on heat-of-passion issues pre-trial evidence trigger)
United States v. Begay, 673 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc discussion on defense burden and evidence)
United States v. Pillado, 656 F.3d 754 (7th Cir.2011) (burden-shifting principles in defense theories)
Fisher v. United States, 328 U.S. 463 (1946) (premeditation/conceived design for murder standard)