Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Are
the
statements
made
by
the
defendant
through
the
Internet
a
true
threat
given
the
context
in
which
the
comments
were
delivered?
Was
there
evidence
that
the
statements
were
made
with
the
intent
to
intimidate
by
the
defendant?
Did
the
government
establish
that
the
defendant
intended
to
communicate
a
threat
in
his
statements?
Answer(s):
YES.
A
communication
is
a
threat
under
875(c)
if
"in
its
context
[it]
would
have
a
reasonable
tendency
to
create
apprehension
that
its
originator
will
act
according
to
its
tenor."
United
States
v.
Myers,
104
F.3d
76,
79
(5th
Cir.
1997).
The
court
examined
the
comments
in
context
and
was
able
to
determine
the
comments
were
a
true
threat.
YES.
The
focus
was
on
whether
the
threat
"in
its
context
would
have
a
reasonable
tendency
to
create
apprehension
that
its
originator
will
act
according
to
its
tenor."
Myers,
104
F.3d
at
78.
The
defendant
admitted
during
trial
that
he
knew
his
statements
were
wrong
and
that
he
understood
why
the
woman
took
them
as
a
threat.
YES.
Noting
that
"[a]s
a
straightforward
matter
of
textual
interpretation,
we
will
not
presume
that
a
statutory
crime
requires
specific
intent
in
the
absence
of
language
to
that
effect,"
and
recognizing
that
"
875(c)
contains
nothing
suggesting
a
specific
intent
requirement,"
we
held
that
the
government
was
not
required
to
prove
that
the
defendant
intended
the
statements
to
be
threats.
Myers,
104
F.3d
at
80-81.
In
all
three
questions
posed
in
appeal
by
the
defendant,
the
court
is
able
to
reference
the
precedent
set
in
the
United
States
v.
Meyers
litigation
to
uphold
the
ruling
by
the
district
court.
The
court
disagreed
with
the
defendant
that
even
though
his
threat
was
made
to
a
third
party
Reasoning
of
the
Court:
E.Grady
Jolly,
Circuit
Judge:
the
court
affirmed
the
ruling
of
the
district
court
stating
there
was
no
error
in
denying
the
motions
for
judgment
of
acquittal
or
denying
the
jury
instructions
requested
by
the
defendant.
Also
in
this
case,
the
plaintiff
was
not
required
to
show
that
the
intent
to
garner
a
threat
was
communicated
directly
to
the
person
the
harm
was
intended.
Indeed,
the
defendant
can
make
his
threats
to
a
third
party
and
still
be
considered
an
act
of
true
threat.
The
court
upheld
this
principle
that
was
set
originally
in
United
States
v.
Meyers.
Cases
such
as
this
are
important
in
higher
education
as
the
academic
setting
becomes
more
electronic.
Students,
faculty
and
staff
use
online
tools
for
research
and
for
coursework.
Neither
a
student,
a
professor
nor
administrator
can
use
the
First
Amendment
for
protection
if
his
or
her
actions
are
threating
to
another
person,
regardless
if
it
is
direct
or
through
a
third
party.
Free
speech
and
electronic
communication
have
perimeters
under
federal
statute
that
are
in
place
to
protect
the
greater
good.