United States v. Clemens, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Clemens, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/29

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1149

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J EFFREY L. CLEMENS,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Dougl as P. Woodl ock, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,St ahl and Howar d, Ci r cui t J udges.

Mat t hew S. Camer on on br i ef f or appel l ant .Mar k T. Qui nl i van, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, and

Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, on br i ef f or appel l ee.

December 10, 2013


2/29

LYNCH, Chief Judge. We ar e i nvi t ed i n t hi s case t o

change our ci r cui t l aw on t he t ype of i nt ent needed by a def endant

t o communi cate " t r ue t hr eat s" under 18 U. S. C. 875( c) . We note

t her e i s a ci r cui t spl i t on t he quest i on of i nt ent i n t he af t er mat h

of Vi r gi ni a v. Bl ack, 538 U. S. 343 ( 2003) . The i ssue was not

r ai sed bef or e t he t r i al cour t , and on pl ai n er r or r evi ew we see no

r eason t o depar t f r om t hi s ci r cui t ' s l aw t hat an obj ect i ve t est of

def endant ' s i nt ent i s used f r omt he def endant ' s vant age poi nt under

875( c) . Uni t ed St at es v. Whi f f en, 121 F. 3d 18, 21 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) .

On May 11, 2011, a j ur y convi ct ed J ef f r ey Cl emens of t wo

count s of sendi ng t hr eat s t o i nj ur e anot her across st at e l i nes i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 875( c) . He was sent enced t o f i ve year s of

i mpr i sonment . The t hr eats wer e i n t wo emai l s, one sent t o St ephen

Pf af f , t he opposi ng counsel and def endant i n a l awsui t t hat Cl emens

had f i l ed, and t he ot her t o Pat r i ci a Vi nchesi , t he Town

Admi ni st r at or of Sci t uat e, Massachuset t s, whi ch was al so a

def endant i n t hat sui t .

Cl emens appeal s f r om hi s convi ct i on, pr i mar i l y ar gui ng

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t gave i ncor r ect j ur y i nst r uct i ons on t he

meani ng of t he t er m "t hr eat . " He al so ar gues t hat t her e was

i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on and t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t had er r ed i n denyi ng hi s pr e- t r i al mot i on t o di smi ss

hi s i ndi ct ment . Per t i nent t o most of Cl emens' s cl ai ms of er r or i s

-2-


3/29

hi s ar gument , made f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal , t hat t he Supr eme

Cour t deci si on i n Bl ack r equi r ed t he j ur y t o f i nd t hat he

subj ect i vel y meant t o t hr eat en Pf af f and Vi nchesi and t hat i t was

i nsuf f i ci ent t o measur e hi s i nt ent by r ef er ence t o an obj ect i vel y

r easonabl e person.

We af f i r m.

I .

We dr aw t he f act s pri mar i l y f r om t he par t i es' pl eadi ngs

and t he t r i al r ecor d. Because Cl emens chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency

of t he evi dence, we descr i be t he evi dence i n the l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he j ur y ver di ct . See Uni t ed St at es v. Sot o, 720 F. 3d

51, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

On May 12, 2005, Cl emens was ar r est ed i n Sci t uat e,

Massachuset t s, and t hat set of f t he chai n of event s whi ch

event ual l y r esul t ed i n t he f eder al i ndi ct ment i n t hi s case. That

day, t he Sci t uat e pol i ce depar t ment had r ecei ved a cal l f r oma t own

r esi dent t hat Cl emens was t r espassi ng on t he gr ounds of her home.

The pol i ce ar r est ed Cl emens f or t r espassi ng, af t er he had al r eady

l ef t t he pr i vat e r esi dence, and char ged hi mwi t h di sor der l y conduct

and i mper sonat i ng a pr i vat e i nvest i gat or , i nt er al i a. See Cl emens

v. Town of Sci t uat e, No. 07- 10845- RGS, 2009 WL 1448807, at *1 (D.

Mass. May 22, 2009) . A j ur y convi ct ed Cl emens of t he di sor der l y

conduct count , f or whi ch he ser ved si x mont hs i n st at e pr i son,

al t hough t hat convi ct i on was l at er over t ur ned. ( The r eason i s not

-3-


4/29

i n t he r ecor d. ) He al so had admi t t ed t hat t her e wer e suf f i ci ent

f act s t o pr ove hi s gui l t f or i mper sonat i ng an i nvest i gat or , f or

whi ch he recei ved a si x mont h suspended sent ence.

I n May 2007, Cl emens f i l ed a 1983 l awsui t , pr o se, i n

f eder al cour t agai nst t he Town of Sci t uat e ( Town) , t wo l ocal pol i ce

of f i cer s, t he Town r esi dent who had accused hi m of t r espassi ng and

t hat r esi dent ' s husband, asser t i ng t hat t he ar r est had been wi t hout

pr obabl e cause, i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h Amendment , and pendent

common l aw t or t cl ai ms. See i d. at *2. Pf af f was t he at t orney who

r epr esent ed t he Town and t he pol i ce of f i cer s i n t hi s 1983 case.

On J anuary 9, 2009, Pf af f f i l ed a mot i on f or summary j udgment ,

ar gui ng t hat Cl emens had no l egal basi s f or hi s cl ai ms. The

di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summar y j udgment as t o al l f eder al cl ai ms on

May 22, 2009, decl i ni ng t o exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on over t he pendent

st at e l aw cl ai ms. See i d. at *3.

Agai n proceedi ng pro se, on Oct ober 27, 2009, Cl emens

f i l ed anot her l awsui t i n f eder al cour t agai nst t he Town, t he

Sci t uat e pol i ce of f i cer s, and addi t i onal def endant s, i ncl udi ng

Pf af f ; t hi s t i me Cl emens sought damages f or mal i ci ous prosecut i on

and "wi l l f ul negl i gence. " The case was assi gned t o a di f f er ent

f eder al di st r i ct cour t j udge.

Pf af f agai n r epr esent ed t he Town, some i ndi vi dual

def endant s, and hi msel f i n t hi s second l awsui t . On March 5, 2010,

Pf af f moved t o di smi ss t he l awsui t as t o hi msel f . I n r esponse,

-4-


5/29

Cl emens sent Pf af f t he f ol l owi ng emai l t hr ee days l at er , on Mar ch

8, 2010 at 10: 25 p. m. 1:

Dear est Mr . Pf af f :

The j udge t o whom you j ust mot i oned, Wi l l i amG. Young, by t he way [ per haps you knewal r eady] , gr aduated Harvar d Law wi t h Al anAl exander , l ong and dear f r i end and associ at et o Ronal d Bass, cr edi t ed aut hor of t he movi eRai n Man whi ch you took i t upon your sel f t or ef er t o i n your r ecent mot i on bef or e hi m[ Young] . Onl y t hi ng i s, Mr . Bass went t oHarvard Law, t oo, and gr aduat ed but one yearbef ore Mr . Young.

Gee, do you suppose t hey knew each ot her ?Exchanged notes? Took Ci vi l Procedur et oget her ?

I f you want t o f i l e crap l i ke your Rul e 12mot i on, f i ne. Appar ent l y, t he t r ut h meansnot hi ng t o ei t her you or t he pol i ce[ obvi ousl y, you mot i oned t o avoi d di scover y] .Gi ven t he r ecent St ear ns di squal i f i cat i on[ whi ch you f ai l ed to ment i on i n your mot i on] ,I bel i eve you are pl ayi ng a dangerous game, avery dangerous game. I have ever y hunchsomeone i s goi ng t o get hur t . At t hi s poi nt[ year s of pol i ce/ cour t bul l shi t , and yourcrap] , I ' m r at her hopi ng someone wi l l[ deser vi ng i t , of cour se] .

Have you ever been punched i n t he f ace? Wel l ,I was, at PCCH, 2 t hanks t o O' Har a and Moynahanand now, f r ankl y, I r at her hope you exper i encet hat same t hr i l l someday, f i gur at i vel y orot her wi se, maybe even see one of your

1 The under l i ned por t i ons of t he emai l ar e t hose t hat Pf af fi dent i f i ed as t hr eat eni ng at t r i al . The emphasi s t hat was i nCl emens' s or i gi nal emai l has been r emoved. The br acket ed mat er i alappear s as such i n t he or i gi nal .

2 PCCH presumabl y r ef er s t o t he Pl ymout h Count y House ofCor r ect i on.

-5-


6/29

"cl i ent s" go t o pr i son, you get di sbar r ed," t aken t o a chop shop on St aten I sl and" ,what ever .

Ther e was never any "ar gument " between O' Har aand I on May 12, 2005. He i s one l yi ng

son- of - a- bi t ch and you knew i t on Sept ember17, 2008 when you i nvi t ed hi mt o si t i n on t heGoyet t e deposi t i on. And you knew O' Hara wasgoi ng to l i e at t he Sept ember 18, 2008"t r i al " . And you now expect t o l et yourmi sconduct be a basi s f or a Rul e 12 mot i on?What , I pl ed t o "suf f i c i ent f act s"? Bul l shi t .Ther e was never any suf f i ci ent f act s t o begi nwi t h much l ess pl ea t o. You and your peopl esyst emat i cal l y BUTTFUCKED me and you knew i t ,t oo.

I wi l l say i t now, once. I , at t hi s poi nt ,wi l l not ever al l ow t he SPD and HDC t o getaway wi t h what t hey have done. They' r e anaf f r ont t o al l t hat i s [ pr et ended t o be]Amer i can Democracy and J ust i ce, as are you.One way or anot her , I wi l l have my day i ncour t or t he back al l ey [ hi nt , hi nt , vei l edt hr eat pot ent i al her e] .

You do be car ef ul now, you hear ? And by al lmeans, r un t o your FBI f r i ends, I woul dencour age i t . Af t er al l , per j ur y i s a f eder alof f ense t oo, especi al l y when t he vi cti m i sf r om out - of - stat e. Besi des, i t [you r unni ngt o t he f eds] wi l l gi ve me a chance t o make mycase. Yeah, go ahead and cal l t he FBI and saysomet hi ng l i ke "Oh, Mr . Cl emens [ ' ] t hr eat enedme[ ' ] i n an emai l l ast ni ght ". Yeah, r i ght .Fi ve year s, and t hi s ai n' t over . And do youknow why? I mean, r eal l y, why i s t hi s whol et hi ng not over ? Because of peopl e l i ke you,who crossed t he l i ne [ i n Sept ember 2008] , andO' Hara and Moynahan, who cr ossed cer t ai n

l i nes, t oo. You, at t hi s poi nt , I assur e you,wi l l get what you deser ve. Pow! Bang!Spl at ! I r eal l y, t r ul y and si ncer el y wi sh youwer e dead.

I am ver y much l ooki ng f or war d t o put t i ng youi n your pl ace, Mr . Pf af f . You di sgust me. You

-6-


7/29

ar e absol ut e f i l t h [ pr oof posi t i ve t hat a sui tand t i e ul t i mat el y doesn' t not make a per son"good" or " r espect abl e"] . Yeah, rememberSt earns and t he whol e Laver oni def aul t ? Sur eyou do. And sur el y, you wi l l pay t he pr i cesome day f or t he many year s of i ncarcerat i on I

had to endur e BECAUSE OF YOU Mr . Hi r ed i n 2007Over A Year Bef or e The Sept ember 2008 Tr i alThat Gave You Summar y J udgment Pf af f .

Oh, how I wi sh a 10- t on I - beam woul d f al l onyou, O' Hara, Rooney and Shel l y3 r i ght now.Spl at ! Boy, woul d I l ove t o see t hat !

Per haps someday I wi l l [ or , at l east , anequi val ent exper i ence] . As f ar as I amconcer ned, nei t her you nor your par t ner s i ncr i me deserve your f r eedom r i ght now.

Fr om now on, be sure and wat ch your backsi de,Mr . Pf af f . God may st ep up t o t he pl ate atany moment . I dunno, I got t hi s f eel i ngsomeone' s goi ng t o get hur t REAL BAD. And i tai n' t gonna be me.

Here' s to Law and Or der . And yes, you canexpect a f ul l br i ef i ng f r om me i n t he comi ngdays addr essi ng your t r ut h- t wi st i ngt r ut h- bur yi ng mast er pi ece of a mot i on.Rat i onal i ze al l you want but come J udgment Dayyou' ve had i t .

J ef f r ey Cl emens

( emphasi s added) .

Cl emens al so sent t hi s emai l as an at t achment t o Pat r i ci a

Vi nchesi , t he Sci t uat e Town Admi ni st r at or , at 10: 34 p. m. on Mar ch

8, 2010, wi t h t he message "Mr . [ si c] Vi nchesi : You al l mi ght be

3 Sergeant Mi chael O' Hara and Li eut enant J ohn Rooney areSci t uat e pol i ce of f i cer s and def endant s i n Cl emens' s l awsui t s.Shel l ey Laver oni had accused Cl emens of t r espassi ng and i s al so adef endant i n hi s l awsui t s.

-7-


8/29

di ggi ng your sel f a gr ave. J ef f r ey. " Vi nchesi was not a def endant

i n ei t her of Cl emens' s l awsui t s.

Pf af f r ead Cl emens' s emai l t he f ol l owi ng morni ng on March

9. He t est i f i ed i n t hi s case t hat he had r ead t he emai l as a

"per sonal physi cal t hr eat . " As a r esul t , he sent hi s wi f e a

photogr aph of Cl emens, whi ch he had i n hi s case f i l e, because he

was wor r i ed t hat Cl emens woul d show up at t he chi l d car e cent er

wher e she worked. Pf af f sent t hi s same photogr aph t o t he Chi ef of

Pol i ce i n the t own where he l i ved because he "was concerned f or

[ hi s] physi cal saf et y" and asked f or ext r a pat r ol car s t o come by

hi s house.

That same day, Pf af f f or war ded t he emai l t o an FBI agent

whomhe knew. He al so sent Cl emens' s emai l t o t he cour t r oom cl er k

assi gned t o t he ci vi l l awsui t . 4

Li ke Pf af f , Vi nchesi al so opened t he emai l f r om Cl emens

on Mar ch 9. She t est i f i ed t hat she "got ver y scar ed" consi der i ng

t hat she was t he onl y per son t o r ecei ve an at t achment wi t h

Cl emens' s emai l t o Pf af f , and t he message addr essed t o her was "You

al l mi ght be di ggi ng your sel f a gr ave. " She f or war ded t he emai l t o

Sci t uat e' s Chi ef of Pol i ce and al so met wi t h hi m i n per son. The

Chi ef gave her a photogr aph of Cl emens. Vi nchesi sai d i t was "ver y

4 Af t er a hear i ng on Apr i l 1, 2010, t he di st r i ct cour tdi smi ssed Cl emens' s second ci vi l sui t wi t h pr ej udi ce "due t o[ Cl emens' s] abuse of l i t i gat i on pr ocess t hr ough hi s scur r i l ous andt hr eateni ng communi cat i ons. "

-8-


9/29

i mpor t ant t o know what [ Cl emens] l ooked l i ke, [ i n case] he shoul d

show up i n [ her ] of f i ce" i n t he Sci t uat e Town Hal l , whi ch was open

t o t he publ i c and had no secur i t y measur es.

FBI Agent Thomas Gr eenwal t t est i f i ed t hat he had arr est ed

Cl emens on March 17 i n Hur on, Ohi o, where he t hen l i ved wi t h hi s

par ent s. Af t er bei ng advi sed of hi s r i ght s, Cl emens admi t t ed t hat

he had sent t he emai l s t o Pf af f and Vi nchesi whi l e he was i n Hur on.

Gr eenwal t t est i f i ed t hat Cl emens had char act er i zed t he emai l s as

"st r ongl y wor ded" and " r het or i c. " Cl emens al so sai d t o Gr eenwal t

t hat he di d not use hi s best j udgment i n sendi ng t hem al t hough he

asser t ed t hat " [ f ] eel i ng l i ke doi ng somet hi ng i s not t he same as

act ual l y doi ng i t . "

I I .

On Apr i l 14, 2010, a gr and j ur y charged Cl emens wi t h two

count s of "I nt er st at e Tr ansmi ssi on of Thr eat t o I nj ur e" i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 875( c) , based on t he emai l s t hat he had

sent t o Pf af f and Vi nchesi . Sect i on 875( c) puni shes " [ w] hoever

t r ansmi t s i n i nt er st at e . . . commer ce any communi cat i on cont ai ni ng

any t hr eat . . . t o i nj ur e" anot her per son.

Cl emens moved t o di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment , argui ng i n par t

t hat t he emai l s ar e, as a mat t er of l aw, pr ot ect ed speech under t he

Fi r st Amendment and do not cont ai n " t r ue t hr eat s, " whi ch are

out si de t he scope of Fi r st Amendment pr otect i on.

-9-


10/29

On Apr i l 22, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed Cl emens' s

mot i on, not i ng t hat whet her a st atement i s a t hr eat under 875( c)

i s usual l y an i ssue of f act f or t he j ur y. I t appl i ed t hi s

ci r cui t ' s obj ect i ve t est under whi ch a st at ement i s a thr eat i f t he

sender 5 shoul d have r easonabl y f or eseen t hat t he r eci pi ent woul d

i nt er pr et i t as such.

Whi l e acknowl edgi ng Cl emens' s poi nt t hat some of t he

st at ement s i n t he emai l expr ess hopes or wi shes, such as Cl emens' s

"wi sh" t hat a "10- t on I - beam" f al l on Pf af f , t he cour t obser ved

t hat t hese wi shes ar e "har dl y of a beni gn nat ur e" and ar e

accompani ed by st atement s t hat r ef er ence Cl emens' s i nt ent t o

act ual l y "do somet hi ng" t o Pf af f . Gi ven t he cont ext of Cl emens' s

communi cat i ons - - hi ghl y cont ent i ous l i t i gat i on - - t he cour t

5 The cour t , r el yi ng on model j ur y i nst r uct i ons, al soi nst r uct ed t hat t he t est f or a t hr eat was obj ect i ve as t o t her eci pi ent , because a t r ue t hr eat i s one t hat a " r easonabl er eci pi ent f ami l i ar i zed wi t h t he cont ext of t he communi cat i on woul df i nd t hr eateni ng. " Uni t ed St ates v. Cl emens, No. 10- 10124- DPW,2011 WL 1540150, at *2 ( D. Mass. Apr . 22, 2011) ( quot i ng Uni t edSt at es v. Ni shni ani dze, 342 F. 3d 6, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) ( i nt er nalquotat i on mark omi t t ed) .

The gover nment has ar gued t hat t he cour t er r oneousl y r ai sedt he gover nment ' s bur den pr oof when i t sai d t hat t he obj ect i ve t estappl i es t o both t he sender and t he r eci pi ent . The gover nment

cont ends t hat t he t est i n t hi s ci r cui t , as ar t i cul at ed i n Uni t edSt at es v. Ful mer , 108 F. 3d 1486 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) , and Uni t ed St at esv. Whi f f en, 121 F. 3d 18 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) , i s an obj ect i ve st andar donl y f r om t he per spect i ve of t he sender . We do not addr ess t hegover nment ' s obj ect i on, whi ch i s not necessary t o t he out come oft hi s appeal . The gover nment does not cl ai m t o have cal l ed t hi si ssue t o t he at t ent i on of t he t r i al j udge.

-10-


11/29

concl uded t hat a " r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat [ Cl emens' s]

st at ement s const i t ut ed a t hr eat . "

Dur i ng a t hr ee- day t r i al i n May 2011, Pf af f , Vi nchesi ,

and FBI Agent Gr eenwal t t est i f i ed on behal f of t he gover nment and

Cl emens' s emai l s t o Pf af f and Vi nchesi wer e submi t t ed as evi dence.

The def ense di d not cal l any wi t nesses, and Cl emens chose not t o

test i f y.

At t r i al , Cl emens had admi t t ed t hat : 1) t he emai l s wer e

sent i n i nt er st at e commer ce, t r avel i ng f r omOhi o t o Massachuset t s,

wher e Pf af f and Vi nchesi r ecei ved t hem; and 2) he i nt ended to send

t he emai l s. So, t he onl y i ssue l ef t f or t he j ur y under 875( c)

was whether t he emai l s cont ai ned a thr eat t o i nj ure someone.

I n cl osi ng, t he def ense ar gued t hat i t i s not r easonabl e

t o const r ue t hese emai l s as l i t er al t hr eat s, char act er i zi ng Cl emens

as an "aggr i eved" person who was j ust bl owi ng of f st eam because he

f el t he had been t r eat ed unf ai r l y i n t he st at e cri mi nal j ust i ce

syst em and was f r ust r at ed wi t h t he pr ogr ess of hi s r el at ed ci vi l

sui t s. The def ense al so f ocused on t he l anguage of t he emai l s,

sayi ng t hat Cl emens' s "car t ooni sh" and "sel f - r ef er ent i al "

st at ement s wer e not meant t o be t aken l i t er al l y.

Cl emens proposed sever al j ur y i nst r uct i ons t o t he

di st r i ct cour t , i ncl udi ng one on t he meani ng of a "t hr eat . " 6

6 The def endant pr oposed t hese i nst r uct i ons, as per t i nent t ot hi s appeal :

-11-


12/29

The di st r i ct cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ury t hat i t had t o

det er mi ne whet her t he emai l s sent t o Pf af f and Vi nchesi cont ai ned

The gover nment must prove beyond a r easonabl e doubtt hat t he st atement s made const i t ut e a t r ue t hr eat underf eder al l aw. A t hr eat i s a st atement made i n a cont extor under such ci r cumst ances t hat a reasonabl e per sonwoul d f oresee that t he st at ement woul d convey t o t her eci pi ent a ser i ousness of pur pose t o i nf l i ct bodi l y har mand t he apparent pr ospect of execut i on.

A t r ue t hr eat i s a st at ement expr essi ng an i nt ent i ont o assaul t someone i n such a way as coul d reasonabl yi nduce f ear . A t r ue t hr eat i s t o be di st i ngui shed f r om

i dl e, car el ess t al k, exagger at i on, or somet hi ng sai d i na rude, aggr essi ve, or of f ensi ve manner .

You must deter mi ne whether t he gover nment has provedbeyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat Mr . Cl emens' s al l egedst at ement s wer e a t r ue t hr eat when j udged i n thei rcont ext , t hat i s, whet her t he gover nment has pr ovedbeyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he st at ement s were aser i ous expr essi on of i nt ent t o i nf l i ct i nj ur y and notmerel y a vehement or of f ensi ve expr essi on of hyperbol e orargument agai nst a government of f i ci al .

Thi s means you shoul d consi der t he st at ement i nl i ght of t he ent i r e f actual cont ext , i ncl udi ng:

The sur r oundi ng events ; The pl ace f r om wher e t he st at ement s wer e made; The ci r cumst ances l eadi ng up t o Mr . Cl emens' s

st at ement s; The way i n whi ch Mr . Cl emens chose t o communi cat e

t he st at ement s; The ef f ect of t he stat ement s on t he r eci pi ent s; The cont ext of t he st at ement s wi t hi n t he emai l s

sent ;

Whet her on t hei r f ace and i n t he ci r cumst ances i nwhi ch t hey wer e made t he st at ements wer e sounequi vocal , uncondi t i onal , and speci f i c as t oconvey to t he r eci pi ent s a gr avi t y of pur pose andapparent pr ospect of execut i on; and

Any pr i or i nt er act i ons bet ween Mr . Cl emens and Mr .Pf af f and/ or Ms. Vi nchesi .

-12-


13/29

a t hr eat t o i nj ur e, expl ai ni ng t hat t he "gener al def i ni t i on of a

t hr eat , i s a communi cat ed i nt ent t o i nf l i ct har m or l oss on

anot her . " The cour t al so i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t o use an obj ect i ve

t est f or i dent i f yi ng a t hr eat under 875( c) , sayi ng i n par t :

[ W] e are l ooki ng f or a soci et al j udgment aboutwhet her or not a person sendi ng such acommuni cat i on woul d under st and t hat i t was at hr eat and t hat a per son r ecei vi ng such acommuni cat i on woul d underst and t hat t hey havebeen t hreat ened. You become t he embodi ment ofsoci et y her e i n maki ng t hi s ki nd of j udgmentabout deci di ng accor di ng t o our or di nar ynot i ons of behavi or and r esponsi bi l i t y amongor di nar y peopl e i n our soci et y at t hi s t i me,not somebody who i s over anxi ous or over -concerned, not somebody who i s obl i vi ous t ocommuni cat i ons. But t he ordi nar y person whor ecei ves t hi s or sends i t , what woul d t heybel i eve t hi s t o be, a t hr eat or not ?

Cl emens obj ect ed t o t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons, ar gui ng t hat

t he cour t shoul d have used hi s pr oposed i nst r uct i ons on t hr eat s

because t hey "add[ ] an addi t i onal pr ot ect i on" of descr i bi ng t hr eat s

as " t r ue, " and because they say that t he t hr eat of i nj ur y must be

i mmi nent .

Cl emens di d not obj ect t o t he cour t ' s r ef usal t o i nst r uct

t he j ur y on "ambi guous st at ement s" or i t s appl i cat i on of an

obj ect i ve, as opposed t o subj ect i ve, st andar d t o t he i ssue of

i nt ent . He r ai ses bot h of t hese ar gument s f or t he f i r st t i me on

appeal . Nor di d Cl emens ever chal l enge t he suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence at t r i al .

-13-


14/29

Af t er t he cour t had al r eady gi ven i t s i nst r uct i ons i t

decl i ned t o add Cl emens' s def i ni t i on of a thr eat , sayi ng t hat "[ i t ]

add[ s] di mensi ons t o t he case t hat are nowher e t o be f ound i n the

Fi rs t Ci rcui t l aw. "

Af t er del i ber at i ng f or j ust under t wo hour s, on May 11,

2011, t he j ur y f ound Cl emens gui l t y of bot h count s of sendi ng

t hr eat s t o i nj ur e i n i nt er st at e commer ce. Cl emens t i mel y appeal ed.

I I I .

A. J ur y I nst r uct i ons

Cl emens' s onl y pr eserved chal l enge to t he j ur y

i nst r uct i ons i s t hat t he cour t di d not use hi s l anguage on a "t r ue

t hr eat . " He suggest s t hat t he cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons di d not

di st i ngui sh bet ween l anguage t hat i s prot ect ed by t he Fi r st

Amendment and " t r ue t hr eat s. " Cl emens' s own proposed i nst r uct i ons,

i t i s wor t h poi nt i ng out , ut i l i zed an obj ect i ve t est, r ef er r i ng t o

"an i nt ent i on t o assaul t someone i n such a way as coul d r easonabl y

i nduce f ear . " ( emphasi s added) .

We r evi ew pr eser ved cl ai ms of l egal er r or i n j ur y

i nst r uct i ons de novo. See Uni t ed St at es v. Sasso, 695 F. 3d 25, 29

( 1st Ci r . 2012) . "[ A] di str i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi ve a

par t i cul ar i nst r ucti on const i t ut es er r or onl y i f t he r equest ed

i nst r uct i on was ( 1) cor r ect as a mat t er of subst ant i ve l aw, ( 2) not

subst ant i al l y i ncor por at ed i nt o t he char ge as r ender ed, and ( 3)

i nt egr al t o an i mpor t ant poi nt i n t he case. " Uni t ed St at es v.

-14-


15/29

Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . "An err or mandat es

r ever sal onl y when i t i s pr ej udi ci al based on a r evi ew of t he

ent i r e r ecor d. " I d.

The di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n not adopt i ng Cl emens' s

i nst r uct i ons. To st ar t , Cl emens' s pr oposal cont ai ns i ncor r ect

st at ement s. Hi s i nst r uct i ons ask t he j ur y t o consi der whet her hi s

st at ement s " wer e so unequi vocal , uncondi t i onal , and speci f i c as t o

convey to t he r eci pi ent s a gr avi t y of pur pose and apparent pr ospect

of execut i on. " We have r ej ect ed any r equi r ement t hat t hr eats be

"unequi vocal , uncondi t i onal , and speci f i c. " Rat her , " use of

ambi guous l anguage does not pr ecl ude a st at ement f r om bei ng a

t hr eat . " 7 Uni t ed St at es v. Ful mer , 108 F. 3d 1486, 1492 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) ; see i d. at 1490, 1492 ( hol di ng t hat a j ur y coul d f i nd t he

phr ase " [ t ] he si l ver bul l et s are comi ng" r epr esent ed a t hr eat

despi t e evi dence of t hat phr ase' s pot ent i al i nnocuous meani ng) ; see

al so Uni t ed St at es v. Tur ner , 720 F. 3d 411, 424 ( 2d Ci r . 2013)

( comment i ng t hat t he Second Ci r cui t has " af f i r med convi ct i ons f or

t hr eat s t hat wer e bot h condi t i onal and i nexpl i ci t ") .

Ther e ar e ot her er r or s i n Cl emens' s i nst r uct i ons, but we

need not par se t hem because t he di st r i ct cour t ' s j ur y i nst r uct i ons

accompl i sh t hat whi ch he r equest ed: di st i ngui shi ng r eal or " t r ue"

7 Al t hough Ful mer revi ewed a convi ct i on under 18 U. S. C. 115( a) ( 1) ( B) , a di f f er ent st at ut e t hat pr oscri bes t hr eat s t o"assaul t , ki dnap, or mur der " Uni t ed St at es of f i ci al s, t hi s cour thas t r eat ed t he t er m "t hr eat " or " t hr eat en" as havi ng t he samemeani ng i n bot h cr i mi nal st at ut es. See Whi f f en, 121 F. 3d at 21.

-15-


16/29

t hr eat s f r om t hose t hat ar e not . See Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d at 24

( hol di ng t hat t her e i s no er r or wher e t he r equest ed i nst r uct i on i s

"subst ant i al l y i ncor por at ed i nt o the char ge as r ender ed") .

Cl emens' s submi t t ed i nst r uct i ons asked j ur or s t o eval uat e

st at ement s "i n t hei r cont ext " t o di st i ngui sh a "t r ue t hr eat " f r om

"i dl e, car el ess t al k, exagger at i on, or somet hi ng sai d i n a r ude,

aggr essi ve, or of f ensi ve manner . "

The di st r i ct cour t accompl i shed t he needed di st i nct i ons,

but i n more appr opr i at e l anguage:

Now, t her e have been var i ous adj ect i vest hat have been used by the par t i es i n t al ki ngabout t hi s, " i ncendi ar y" and "exci t abl e" and"bad j udgment " and "not f r i endl y" and"vehement " and "bad manners. " Those may ormay not be ways t o di st i ngui sh a t hr eat undert hese ci r cumst ances, but you ar e not so muchconcerned about whet her or not i t was badmanner s or vehement or exci t abl e as t o whet heror not a reasonabl e per son r eadi ng thi s woul dsay t hat i s a t hr eat , and whet her a reasonabl eper son sendi ng i t woul d under st and t hat i s athreat . . . .

Of cour se [ i n maki ng t hatdet er mi nat i on] you consi der al l of t heci r cumst ances. Horsepl ay bet ween ki ds usi ngi nf l ated l anguage mi ght , under someci r cumst ances, not be consi der ed a t hr eat . Aki nd of act i ng out mi ght not be consi der ed at hr eat . But what you ar e f ocusi ng on i swhet her or not i n our soci et y at t hi s t i me t hecommuni cat i on of t hese words i n t hi s cont ext

woul d, by a reasonabl e per son, be consi der ed at hr eat , and t hat i s what i s at t he cor e oft hi s case.

As t o Cl emens' s st at ed obj ect i ons at t r i al , t her e was no er r or .

-16-


17/29

We tur n to Cl emens' s ar gument s made f or t he f i r st t i me on

appeal . Fi r st , he ar gues t hat t he cour t ' s def i ni t i on of a t hr eat ,

dr awn f r om Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y, mi sst at es t he l aw because i t

f ai l ed t o i ncl ude t he st at ut or y l anguage of a t hr eat "t o i nj ur e. "

He mi xes appl es and or anges. The cour t had i ni t i al l y i nst r uct ed

t he j ur y:

At t he gut s of t hi s case, I woul d suggest t oyou, and t he thi ng t hat you are goi ng to havet o be concer ned wi t h i s whether or not t hecommuni cat i ons . . . cont ai ned a t hr eat t oi nj ure someone.

Now, t he l aw has been I t hi nk f ai r l yspeci f i c about what a t hr eat means i n t hi sset t i ng. The gener al pr oposi t i on, gener aldef i ni t i on of a t hr eat , i s a communi cat edi nt ent t o i nf l i ct har m or l oss on anot her .

( emphasi s added) . The di st r i ct cour t di d not er r at al l when i t

expl ai ned t o t he j ur y t hat i t was pr ovi di ng a gener al def i ni t i on of

t he t er m" t hr eat " i mmedi at el y af t er i t had i nst r uct ed t hemof t hei r

par t i cul ar t ask: deci di ng whet her t he emai l s cont ai ned a " t hr eat t o

i nj ure. "

Mor e si gni f i cant l y, Cl emens ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed when i t t ol d t he j ur y to deci de i f a "r easonabl e

per son" sendi ng Cl emens' s emai l s woul d under st and them t o be

t hr eats. He argues t hat t he Supr eme Cour t ' s 2003 deci si on i n Bl ack

mandat es a subj ect i ve i nt ent t est . To be mor e pr eci se, t he

quest i on under 18 U. S. C. 875( c) i s whether t he government must

pr ove onl y t hat a reasonabl e person woul d const r ue t he words as a

-17-


18/29

t hr eat , and need not pr ove as wel l t hat t he def endant subj ect i vel y

meant t he wor ds t o be a t hr eat . See Uni t ed St ates v. J ef f r i es, 692

F. 3d 473, 483- 84 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012) ( Sut t on, J . , dubi t ant e) , cer t .

deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 59 ( 2013) .

Because Cl emens never once r ai sed t hi s i ssue at t r i al ,

al t hough i t was cl ear l y avai l abl e t o hi m, we r evi ew onl y f or pl ai n

error, 8 Uni t ed St at es v. LaPl ant e, 714 F. 3d 641, 643 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) , whi ch Cl emens cannot est abl i sh. To do so, Cl emens must show

t hat : "( 1) t her e was er r or ; ( 2) t he er r or was pl ai n; ( 3) t he er r or

af f ect ed [ hi s] subst ant i al r i ght s; and ( 4) t he er r or adver sel y

i mpact ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v. Car abal l o- Rodr i guez, 480 F. 3d 62,

69 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ggs, 287 F. 3d 221,

224 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

Bef ore Bl ack was deci ded, t hi s cour t had addr essed what

t est must be used t o det er mi ne i nt ent under t r ue t hr eat st at ut es.

I n Ful mer , i nvol vi ng a t hr eat t o a f eder al agent under 18 U. S. C.

115( a) ( 1) ( B) , we f r amed t he quest i on. We not ed t he ci r cui t s

8 Cl emens ar gues t hat he di d r ai se t he subj ect i ve i nt enti ssue at t r i al when he obj ect ed t o t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons because hesai d t hat t he t er m "t r ue t hr eat " i s "l anguage whi ch der i ves f r om

t he Supr eme Cour t . " Thi s ar gument i s f r i vol ous. Hi s vaguer ef er ence t o Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent does not gi ve t he di st r i ctcour t not i ce of t he argument he now makes on appeal , whi ch i s basedon a sent ence i n Bl ack. Cl emens ment i oned nei t her Bl ack norsubj ect i ve i nt ent i n hi s obj ect i on ( or at any poi nt dur i ng t het r i al ) . Mor eover , Cl emens' s own pr of f er ed def i ni t i on of a "t r uet hr eat " appl i ed an obj ect i ve standar d t o i nt ent .

-18-


19/29

agr eed t hat t he t est was an obj ect i ve one but t hat t hey

"di sagr ee[ d] r egar di ng the appr opr i at e vant age poi nt - - what a

per son maki ng t he st at ement shoul d have r easonabl y f oreseen or what

a r easonabl e per son r ecei vi ng t he st at ement woul d bel i eve. " 108

F. 3d at 1491. We concl uded t hat " t he appr opr i at e st andard under

whi ch a def endant may be convi ct ed f or maki ng a t hreat i s whet her

he shoul d have reasonabl y f oreseen t hat t he st atement he ut t er ed

woul d be t aken as a t hr eat by t hose t o whom i t [ wa]s made. " I d.

The quest i on of whether t he st at ut e i nvol ved i n t hi s

case, 18 U. S. C. 875( c) , r equi r ed t he gover nment t o pr ove speci f i c

i nt ent - - t hat t he def endant i nt ended hi s communi cat i ons t o be

r ecei ved as a t hr eat - - was addr essed a f ew mont hs l ater i n

Whi f f en. We r ej ect ed t he argument t hat 875( c) was a speci f i c

i nt ent cr i me, descr i bed i t as a gener al i nt ent cr i me, and adher ed

t o t he Ful mer ar t i cul at i on. Whi f f en, 121 F. 3d at 21.

Al t hough not pr evi ousl y pr esent ed wi t h t hi s t ype of

argument based on Bl ack, si nce Bl ack was deci ded i n 2003 t hi s court

has cont i nued t o appl y i t s obj ect i ve def endant ' s vant age poi nt t est

f or det er mi ni ng i nt ent i n cri mi nal t hr eat cases. See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. St ef ani k, 674 F. 3d 71, 75 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; Uni t ed St at es

v. Wal ker , 665 F. 3d 212, 226 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Ni shni ani dze, 342 F. 3d 6, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

The cor e hol di ng of Bl ack i s act ual l y addr essed t o a

di f f er ent i ssue about t he const i t ut i onal i t y of a Vi r gi ni a l aw t hat

-19-


20/29

banned cr oss bur ni ng wi t h an i nt ent t o i nt i mi dat e, whi ch cont ai ned

a pr esumpt i on as to i nt ent . A j ur y i n Bl ack had been i nst r uct ed

t hat t he st ate must pr ove t he def endant had t he i nt ent t o

i nt i mi dat e any per son and t hat speci f i c i nt ent was not at i ssue.

The Supr eme Cour t of Vi r gi ni a hel d t he st at ut e unconst i t ut i onal on

Fi r st Amendment gr ounds. The Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t , i n a

di vi ded opi ni on concer ned onl y wi t h t he st at ut e' s f aci al pr ovi si on,

whi ch " t r eat [ ed] any cross bur ni ng as pr i ma f aci e evi dence of

i nt ent t o i nt i mi dat e, " Bl ack, 538 U. S. at 347- 48, r emanded i n par t

f or f ur t her i nt er pr et at i on of t hat pr ovi si on, i d. at 367. I n i t s

anal ysi s, t he Cour t sai d, " ' Tr ue t hr eat s' encompass t hose

st at ement s wher e t he speaker means t o communi cat e a ser i ous

expr essi on of an i nt ent t o commi t an act of unl awf ul vi ol ence t o a

par t i cul ar i ndi vi dual or gr oup of i ndi vi dual s. " I d. at 359

( emphasi s added) . I t cont i nued, sayi ng " [ i ] nt i mi dat i on i n t he

const i t ut i onal l y pr oscr i babl e sense of t he wor d i s a t ype of t r ue

t hr eat , wher e a speaker di r ect s a t hr eat t o a per son or gr oup of

per sons wi t h t he i nt ent of pl aci ng t he vi cti m i n f ear of bodi l y

har m or deat h. " I d. at 360. I t i s t hi s f i r st "means t o

communi cat e" l anguage on whi ch def endant ' s ar gument i s based. Even

i f t he st atement wer e onl y di ct a, we must t ake Supr eme Cour t di ct a

ser i ousl y. See Mass. Del i ver y Ass' n. v. Coakl ey, 671 F. 3d 33, 43

( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

-20-


21/29

Of t he cour t s of appeal s t o consi der a subj ect i ve i nt ent

ar gument der i ved f r om t hi s l anguage i n Bl ack, most have r ej ect ed

i t . See Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i nez, No. 11- 13295, 2013 WL 6182973

( 11t h Ci r . Nov. 27, 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. El oni s, 730 F. 3d 321

( 3d Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ni ckl as, 713 F. 3d 435 ( 8t h Ci r .

2013) ; J ef f r i es, 692 F. 3d 473; 9 Uni t ed St at es v. Whi t e, 670 F. 3d

498 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) . These cour t s have r easoned t hat t he Bl ack

deci si on had no occasi on t o di st i ngui sh bet ween subj ect i ve and

obj ect i ve st andar ds f or const r ui ng t hr eat s because ( 1) t he Vi r gi ni a

l aw at i ssue r equi r ed subj ect i ve i nt ent ; and ( 2) t he pr i ma f aci e

evi dence pr ovi si on t hat t he Cour t i nval i dat ed had no st andar d at

al l f or i nt ent , "al l ow[ i ng] convi cti ons ' based sol el y on t he f act

of cross bur ni ng i t sel f . ' " J ef f r i es, 692 F. 3d at 479- 80 ( quot i ng

Bl ack, 538 U. S. at 365) ; see al so El oni s, 730 F. 3d at 329 ( r ef usi ng

t o i nt er pr et Bl ack as "i nval i dat [ i ng] t he obj ect i ve i nt ent st andar d

t he maj or i t y of ci r cui t s appl [ y] t o t r ue t hr eat s" because t he

9 Onl y t he Bl ack ar gument , on pl ai n er r or r evi ew, i s bef or eus. No argument i s made t o us t hat t he l anguage of t he st at ut e ofconvi ct i on, const r ued i n Whi f f en, r equi r es t hat we change our r ul e.Onl y an en banc panel has aut hor i t y t o change t hi s ci r cui t ' si nt er pr et at i on of 875( c) absent a Supr eme Cour t case on poi nt .See Downi ng/ Sal t Pond Par t ner s, L. P. v. R. I . & Pr ovi dence

Pl ant at i ons, 643 F. 3d 16, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .We ar e awar e of J udge Sut t on' s opi ni on dubi t ant e i n J ef f r i es

opi ni ng t hat t he l anguage of 875( c) r equi r es subj ect i ve i nt entand t hat most cour t s have got t en i t wr ong by i mposi ng an obj ect i vei nt ent t est . I mpor t ant l y, he was cl ear t hat hi s i nt er pr et at i on of 875( c) i s not at al l based on Bl ack or t he Fi r st Amendment . SeeJ ef f r i es, 692 F. 3d at 483- 86 ( Sut t on, J . , dubi t ant e) .

-21-


22/29

Vi r gi ni a st at ut e "al r eady r equi r ed a subj ect i ve i nt ent t o

i nt i mi dat e") .

These cour t s have al so addr essed t he par t i cul ar l anguage

i n Bl ack on whi ch Cl emens r el i es, i n whi ch t hr eat s are t hose

st at ement s wher e t he "speaker means t o communi cat e a ser i ous

expr essi on of an i nt ent t o commi t an act of unl awf ul vi ol ence. "

Rat her t han r ead t he l anguage as set t i ng f or t h a subj ect i ve i nt ent

r equi r ement , t hey have concl uded t hat t he sent ence onl y requi r es

t he speaker t o "i nt end t o make the communi cat i on, " not t he thr eat .

El oni s, 730 F. 3d at 329; see Mar t i nez, 2013 WL 6182973, at *5;

J ef f r i es, 692 F. 3d at 480; Whi t e, 670 F. 3d at 508- 09.

To dat e, onl y t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat t hi s

l anguage f r om Bl ack i mposes a subj ect i ve i nt ent r equi r ement i n a

cri mi nal t hr eat st at ut e, 18 U. S. C. 879( a) ( 3) , whi ch pr ohi bi t s

cer t ai n t hr eat s agai nst pr esi dent i al candi dat es and t hei r f ami l i es.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Bagdasar i an, 652 F. 3d 1113, 1117 ( 9t h Ci r .

2011) . That hol di ng i s consi st ent wi t h t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ' s pr i or

case l aw. 10 See i d. at 1117- 18 ( observi ng t hat Bl ack af f i r med t hat

ci r cui t ' s di ctumrequi r i ng subj ecti ve i nt ent ) . I n Uni t ed St at es v.

Par r , 545 F. 3d 491, 500 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) , t he Sevent h Ci r cui t di d

10 One Ni nt h Ci r cui t panel has comment ed t hat t he quest i on i snot whet her a subj ect i ve or an obj ect i ve t est i s r equi r ed, si nce i ni t s vi ew a subj ect i ve t est i s r equi r ed under 18 U. S. C. 879( a) ( 3) ,but whether bot h are r equi r ed. See Bagdasar i an, 652 F. 3d at 1117-18.

-22-


23/29

not deci de t he i ssue but suggest ed t hat an obj ect i ve i nt ent

st andar d i s "no l onger t enabl e" af t er Bl ack.

Here, we need onl y concl ude t hat Cl emens cannot show

pl ai n er r or . Even i f t her e was any er r or , t hat er r or i s not pl ai n

or obvi ous. Most ci r cui t s have r ej ect ed Cl emens' s argument and

t hi s cour t has appl i ed an obj ect i ve def endant vant age poi nt

st andar d post - Bl ack. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Di az, 285 F. 3d 92, 97

( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( hol di ng t hat def endant cannot est abl i sh pl ai n

er r or wher e l aw i s unset t l ed bot h wi t hi n and out si de t he Fi r st

Ci r cui t ) . Absent f ur t her cl ar i f i cat i on f r omt he Supr eme Cour t , we

see no basi s t o vent ur e f ur t her and no basi s t o depar t f r om our

ci r cui t l aw.

As t o the r emai ni ng pr ongs of pl ai n er r or , we add t hat we

have l i t t l e doubt t hat i f a subj ect i ve speci f i c i nt ent i nstr uct i on

had been gi ven, t he j ur y woul d have, on t hese f act s, f ound such

i nt ent . Under ei t her an obj ect i ve or subj ect i ve st andar d, t he j ur y

eval uat es t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances of a case t o det er mi ne

i nt ent . See Uni t ed St at es v. Goodchi l d, 25 F. 3d 55, 60 ( 1st Ci r .

1994) ( obser vi ng, i n a cr i mi nal f r aud case, t hat di r ect pr oof of

i nt ent i s r ar e and t hat t he gover nment "usual l y pr ove[ s] " speci f i c

i nt ent "by ci r cumst ant i al evi dence") . I t i s rare t hat a j ur y woul d

f i nd t hat a r easonabl e speaker woul d have i nt ended a t hr eat under

t he par t i cul ar f act s of a case but t hat a compet ent def endant di d

not . ( Thi s mi ght occur , f or exampl e, i f t he def endant wer e

-23-


24/29

ment al l y handi capped. ) The choi ce between an obj ect i ve and

speci f i c i nt ent r equi r ement i s l i kel y t o have a gr eat er i mpact i n

ci r cui t s, l i ke t he Si xt h but not l i ke t hi s ci r cui t , whi ch uphol d

cr i mi nal t hr eat convi ct i ons based sol el y on t he r eact i on of t he

r easonabl e l i st ener . See J ef f r i es, 692 F. 3d at 478, 480.

Fi nal l y, Cl emens al so ar gues f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n r ef usi ng t o r ead hi s i nst r ucti on

on ambi guous st at ement s. He agai n cannot show pl ai n er r or wher e

hi s i nst r uct i ons i ncl ude er r or s of l aw, such as by sayi ng "[ t ] he

government must prove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he st at ement

was not ambi guous and t hat i t cl ear l y conveyed a thr eat t o

assaul t . "

Whi l e he cl ai ms hi s i nst r uct i on i s dr awn f r omFul mer , i t

i nst ead cont r adi ct s Ful mer , whi ch sai d t hat ambi guous l anguage does

not pr event a st at ement f r om bei ng a t hr eat . 108 F. 3d at 1492.

So, under 875( c) t he gover nment must prove beyond a reasonabl e

doubt t hat a st at ement i s a t hr eat , but need not pr ove t hat t he

st at ement i s unambi guous.

Cl emens' s pr oposed i nst r uct i on al so er r oneousl y r equi r es

t he gover nment t o pr ove a " t hr eat t o assaul t . " ( emphasi s added) .

Sect i on 875( c) , however , pr ohi bi t s a t hr eat t o i nj ur e. The

"assaul t " l anguage appear s t o come f r om 115( a) ( 1) ( B) , whi ch

pr oscr i bes t hr eat s t o "assaul t , ki dnap, or mur der " Uni t ed St at es

-24-


25/29

of f i ci al s. The di str i ct cour t di d not pl ai nl y er r i n r ej ect i ng an

i nst r ucti on r i ddl ed wi t h l egal er r or .

B. Deni al of Mot i on t o Di smi ss t he I ndi ct ment

Cl emens ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have

di smi ssed hi s i ndi ct ment bef or e t r i al because no reasonabl e j ur y

coul d concl ude hi s emai l s, as char ged, communi cat ed "t r ue t hr eat s. "

We r evi ew hi s l egal chal l enge t o t he i ndi ct ment de novo. Uni t ed

St at es v. Guer r i er , 669 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . The ar gument i s

mi spl aced.

I t i s t r ue t hat "st at ut e[ s] . . . whi ch make[ ] cri mi nal

a f orm of pur e speech[ ] must be i nt erpr eted wi t h t he commands of

t he Fi r st Amendment cl ear l y i n mi nd. " Wat t s v. Uni t ed St at es, 394

U. S. 705, 707 ( 1969) ( per cur i am) . Thi s i s not a basi s on whi ch t o

t ake away f r om a j ur y t he f act ual quest i on of whet her or not

Cl emens' s emai l s conveyed t r ue t hr eats. See Uni t ed St ates v.

Whi t e, 610 F. 3d 956, 959 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ( per cur i am) ( r ej ect i ng

def endant ' s Fi r st Amendment argument t o di smi ss an i ndi ct ment

because "potent i al Fi r st Amendment concer n[ s] [ are] addr essed by

t he r equi r ement of pr oof beyond a reasonabl e doubt at t r i al , not by

a di smi ssal at t he i ndi ct ment st age") .

"Whet her a . . . [ st at ement ] const i t ut es a t hr eat i s an

i ssue of f act f or t he t r i al j ur y, " i nvol vi ng assessment s of bot h

cr edi bi l i t y and of cont ext . Ful mer , 108 F. 3d at 1492 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Mal i k, 16 F. 3d 45, 49 ( 2d Ci r . 1994) ) ( i nt er nal

-25-


26/29

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see, e. g. , Whi t e, 610 F. 3d at 962 ( not i ng

t hat an i ndi ct ment need not l ay out al l of t he gover nment ' s

evi dence t hat def endant ' s speech was cr i mi nal sol i ci t at i on) ;

Ni shni ani dze, 342 F. 3d at 15 ( consi der i ng ci r cumst ances l eadi ng up

t o al l eged t hr eateni ng st atement s i n det er mi ni ng whet her a

r easonabl e j ur y coul d convi ct t he def endant under a cr i mi nal t hr eat

statute).

Cl emens argues hi s case i s di f f er ent because hi s

st atement s wer e nothi ng more t han "gener al i zed f ant asy, "

"sar cast i c[ ] , " and "car t ooni sh and hyper bol i c. " 11 Not so. I n

Whi f f en, a def endant al so of f er ed a non- t hr eat eni ng i nt er pr et at i on

of t he st at ement s t hat ser ved as t he basi s f or hi s i ndi ct ment , and

we hel d t hat t he choi ce among i nt er pr et at i ons was an i ssue of f act

pr oper l y l ef t t o a j ur y. 121 F. 3d at 22. Her e t oo t he di st r i ct

cour t was cor r ect i n l et t i ng t he j ur y deci de.

11 Cl emens concedes that hi s st atement s wer e not "pol i t i calspeech" prot ect ed by t he Fi r st Amendment . See Wat t s v. Uni t edSt ates, 394 U. S. 705, 708 ( 1969) ( per cur i am) . However , he askst hi s cour t t o vi ew hi s st at ement s di f f er ent l y f r omor di nar y pr i vat espeech because t hey were communi cat ed t o opposi ng counsel i n t hecont ext of ci vi l l i t i gat i on.

To t he ext ent he suggest s t he Fi r st Amendment t r eat s speech

bet ween opposi ng counsel ( or , i n t hi s case, a pr o se l i t i gant andopposi ng counsel ) di f f er ent l y so as t o war r ant di smi ssal of t hei ndi ct ment i n t hi s case as a mat t er of l aw, he of f er s no suppor tf or t hi s l egal t heor y. The cont ext of hi s communi cat i ons i s, ofcour se, r el evant t o t he "t r ue t hr eat s" i nqui r y, but t hat does nothel p hi m; i t i s st i l l f or t he j ur y t o make t hi s f act- basedassessment .

-26-


27/29

Ot her ci r cui t s agr ee. Uni t ed St at es v. St ock, 728 F. 3d

287, 298 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) ( " I n t he usual case, whet her a

communi cat i on const i t ut es a thr eat or a t r ue t hr eat ' i s a mat t er t o

be deci ded by t he t r i er of f act . ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Kosma, 951 F. 2d 549, 555 ( 3d Ci r . 1991) ) ) ; see, e. g. , Whi t e, 670

F. 3d at 512 ( whet her speech const i t ut es a t hr eat i s an i ssue of

f act f or a j ur y) ; Par r , 545 F. 3d at 497 ( same) ; Mal i k, 16 F. 3d at

49 ( same) . There may be cases wher e no r easonabl e j ury coul d

concl ude t he st at ement s wer e t hr eat s, but t hi s i s not one. See

Uni t ed St ates v. Al khabaz, 104 F. 3d 1492, 1496 ( 6t h Ci r . 1997) .

C. Suf f i ci ency of t he Evi dence

Turni ng f r omhi s ar gument t hat hi s st at ements as a mat t er

of l aw wer e not t hr eats, Cl emens next argues t he evi dence bef ore

t he j ur y was not suf f i ci ent . Because Cl emens never chal l enged t he

suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence at t r i al , 12 we revi ew t he evi dence onl y

t o det er mi ne i f t her e i s a "cl ear and gr oss i nj ust i ce. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Hi cks, 575 F. 3d 130, 139 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Gobbi , 471 F. 3d 302, 309 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on mark omi t t ed) .

A j ur y coul d easi l y concl ude Cl emens had i nt ent i onal l y

made t r ue t hr eats. Her e Cl emens sent an emai l t hat warned Pf af f t o

"wat ch [ hi s] backsi de, " t hat t hey mi ght meet i n a "back al l ey, "

12 Cl emens di d not move f or a j udgment of acqui t t al at t hecl ose of t he gover nment ' s evi dence or at t he cl ose of al l of t heevi dence; nor di d he move f or a post - ver di ct j udgment of acqui t t al .

-27-


28/29

t hat Pf af f was pl ayi ng a "ver y dangerous game, " t hat Cl emens wi shed

Pf af f wer e dead, t hat he hoped a 10- t on beam woul d f al l on Pf af f ,

and t hat he had a f eel i ng someone woul d "get hur t REAL BAD. "

Cl emens f or war ded t he emai l t o Vi nchesi , wi t h t he not e t o her , "You

al l mi ght be di ggi ng your sel f a gr ave. "

The vi ct i ms di d i n f act f eel f ear Cl emens woul d

physi cal l y har m t hem af t er r eadi ng t he emai l s and act ed t o pr ot ect

t hemsel ves. Pf af f t ook sever al pr ecaut i ons, i ncl udi ng sendi ng a

phot o of Cl emens t o hi s wi f e and aski ng f or pat r ol car s t o ci r cl e

hi s home. Vi nchesi al so t ook pr ecaut i ons, meet i ng wi t h Sci t uat e' s

Chi ef of Pol i ce. The j ur y ver di ct was f i r ml y based i n t he

evi dence. See Ni shni ani dze, 342 F. 3d at 16 ( "Whi l e t he f act - f i nder

may consi der ot her evi dence, i ncl udi ng t he ef f ect of t he st at ement

on t he r eci pi ent , t he ul t i mat e st andar d i s an obj ect i ve one - -

whet her a reasonabl e per son woul d under st and t he st at ement t o be

t hr eateni ng. " ) ; Ful mer , 108 F. 3d at 1500 ( comment i ng t hat "evi dence

of t he r eci pi ent ' s r eact i ons" i s r el evant t o "what a per son maki ng

t he st at ement shoul d have r easonabl y f or eseen") ; see al so Mi t chel l

v. Uni t ed St at es, 141 F. 3d 8, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( not i ng t hat even

wher e chal l enges t o evi dence are pr eser ved, an appel l ate cour t

cannot di st ur b a f act f i nder ' s wei ghi ng of evi dence and credi bi l i t y

det er mi nat i ons except f or cl ear er r or ) .

Cl emens' s cl ai mt hat hi s st at ement s wer e not t hr eat eni ng

because t hey were made t o an opposi ng counsel dur i ng ci vi l

-28-


29/29

l i t i gat i on i s al so unavai l i ng. To t he cont r ar y, a j ur y coul d have

f ound t he per cei ved t hr eat was mor e l i kel y t o be car r i ed out gi ven

t hat l i t i gat i on was cont ent i ous and t he si gni f i cance of t he sui t t o

Cl emens.

The j udgment i s af f i r med.

-29-

Documents

United States v. Clemens, 1st Cir. (2013)