The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Mayo, 705 F.2d 62 (2nd Cir. 1983):
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 211, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 2327, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977). In these situations, the legislature has manifested its judgment that the activity proscribed by the general prohibition can be best justified or explained by the defendant. See id. at 209 n. 11, 97 S.Ct. at 2326 n. 11. Exceptions to a general prohibition are a legitimate means to implement a legislative design and often serve to define the scope of the prohibition.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.