Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
John Murtha — Part 1
Page 85
85 / 92
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
1990). It seems equally clear that, had Fenton hiked alone several miles into a forest and
recited his diatribe only to himself, convicting him under § 115 would be tantamount to
punishing his mere thoughts rather than any actual threat. So too, had he uttered the words to a
close friend or relative in strict confidence, conviction under this statute would be unjustified.
But here, Fenton’s words were spoken to a third party unrelated to their object, and whose
relationship with Fenton was at least arguably adversarial, placing this case somewhere between
these two extremes.
Two courts have recently dealt with this issue. In United States v. Bellrichard, 779 F.
Supp. 454 (D. Minn. 1991), aff'd, 904 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1993), defendant sent a series of
threatening letters, most of them directly to their intended victims,’ and was indicted under 18
U.S.C. § 876 for mailing threatening communications. One letter, however, was mailed to the
girlfriend of a defendant awaiting sentencing. In that letter, defendant threatened to kill the
sentencing judge. Id. at 457-58. In holding that such a communication did not constitute a true
threat because there was no connection between the recipient and the intended victim, the court
opined:
In the present case, the postcard to Ms. Hoeper contains no request that it be
communicated to the individuals allegedly threatened. There was no evidence at
trial that Ms. Hoeper was likely to understand that the postcard was to be so
communicated or that it was likely that it would be. Indeed, there was no
evidence that Ms. Hoeper had any connection with the persons allegedly
threatened which could make the language used by the defendant in his postcard
to her a true threat against those persons. The specific language of the postcard
should not be isolated from the whole context of the communication. No
reasonable recipient, in light of the context, could interpret the defendant's
statements about third parties as a true threat within the ambit of Watts. The
The court upheld those convictions. Id. at 461.
8
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic