Supreme Court Throws Out Facebook Threat Conviction
The complaint in the Elonis v. United States regards a criminal conviction of Elonis who made threats on Facebook against his wife, who he is separated from, co-workers, kindergartners, and a federal agent.
In May 2010, Elonis' wife moved out of his house with their two children.
One post directed at Elonis' wife said, " If I only know then what I now now, I would have smothered your ass with a pillow, dumped your body in the back seat, dropped you off in Toad Creek, and made it look like rape and murder."
In November 2010, Elonis' wife received a Protection from Abuse order from the court.
Elonis claimed that he was only venting, and that he didn't actually plan on carrying out what he said on his posts.
In his first trial, he was convicted to three of five counts and to 44 months in jail and three years of supervised release. Elonis went to appeal on the grounds of the freedom of speech saying that he would have needed the intent to threaten.
The main issue in this case was whether a "reasonable person" would regard the statements as a threat or not. The Supreme Court was also taking a look at the First Amendment which concerns the freedom of speech. The First Amendment was put in place to allow citizens to engage in discussions without fearing prosecution. Elonis brought up questions for review in the Supreme Court. Can a person be convicted of a threat if he did not intend to convey one, regardless of how a reasonable person would perceive his remarks?
A lot of federal circuits have an objective intent test, but if a subjective test was adopted, true threats would be punished while leaving room for jokes and figures of speech that may include bad taste and could sound menacing. The objective test means the state must prove the speaker intentionally made a statement that a reasonable person would perceive as a treat. The subjective test means the state must prove the speaker intended to make a statement and that he intended for the statement to be perceived as a threat.
Elonis' attorney argued that he could only be convicted if the prosecutors convinced a jury that he specifically intended harm on each of the targets mentioned in his posts. The opinion stated that mere negligence could not prove guilt alone.
The seven-to-two majority held the State must prove Elonis intended his wife perceive the statements as threats. Since the jury was not instructed this way, the conviction of Elonis would be overturned, and the case will be send back to the court in which Elonis was tried, for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Comments from Allen:
Although Elonis' statements were horrible and sound terribly threatening, the government must prove his mental state at the time he made the threats. The words alone do not make the crime; he must intend those words be perceived as a threat.
This does not mean Elonis walks free. It means he will be tried again, but this time with an instruction to the jury that they cannot convict him unless the State proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended his words as a threat to his estranged wife. This gives the defense attorney considerably more to work with than he had in the original trial.
The State, however, may have lots of evidence that Elonis did intend his words as a threat. State of mind is proved by circumstantial evidence. In this case, that may be proved by earlier misconduct toward his wife consistent with a harmful state of mind toward his wife. We shall see.
Sources for more information:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-justices-toss-out-facebook-threats-conviction#.dnw2xjpWdg
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/3757058-supreme-court-throws-out-conviction-facebook-threats
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/true-threats-and-the-limits-of-first-amendment-protection
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-ranting-facebook-not-crime-n367676
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/01/us-usa-court-crime-idUSKBN0OH2OL20150601
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-983_7l48.pdf
In May 2010, Elonis' wife moved out of his house with their two children.
One post directed at Elonis' wife said, " If I only know then what I now now, I would have smothered your ass with a pillow, dumped your body in the back seat, dropped you off in Toad Creek, and made it look like rape and murder."
In November 2010, Elonis' wife received a Protection from Abuse order from the court.Elonis claimed that he was only venting, and that he didn't actually plan on carrying out what he said on his posts.
In his first trial, he was convicted to three of five counts and to 44 months in jail and three years of supervised release. Elonis went to appeal on the grounds of the freedom of speech saying that he would have needed the intent to threaten.
The main issue in this case was whether a "reasonable person" would regard the statements as a threat or not. The Supreme Court was also taking a look at the First Amendment which concerns the freedom of speech. The First Amendment was put in place to allow citizens to engage in discussions without fearing prosecution. Elonis brought up questions for review in the Supreme Court. Can a person be convicted of a threat if he did not intend to convey one, regardless of how a reasonable person would perceive his remarks?
A lot of federal circuits have an objective intent test, but if a subjective test was adopted, true threats would be punished while leaving room for jokes and figures of speech that may include bad taste and could sound menacing. The objective test means the state must prove the speaker intentionally made a statement that a reasonable person would perceive as a treat. The subjective test means the state must prove the speaker intended to make a statement and that he intended for the statement to be perceived as a threat.
Elonis' attorney argued that he could only be convicted if the prosecutors convinced a jury that he specifically intended harm on each of the targets mentioned in his posts. The opinion stated that mere negligence could not prove guilt alone.
The seven-to-two majority held the State must prove Elonis intended his wife perceive the statements as threats. Since the jury was not instructed this way, the conviction of Elonis would be overturned, and the case will be send back to the court in which Elonis was tried, for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Comments from Allen:
Although Elonis' statements were horrible and sound terribly threatening, the government must prove his mental state at the time he made the threats. The words alone do not make the crime; he must intend those words be perceived as a threat.
This does not mean Elonis walks free. It means he will be tried again, but this time with an instruction to the jury that they cannot convict him unless the State proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended his words as a threat to his estranged wife. This gives the defense attorney considerably more to work with than he had in the original trial.
The State, however, may have lots of evidence that Elonis did intend his words as a threat. State of mind is proved by circumstantial evidence. In this case, that may be proved by earlier misconduct toward his wife consistent with a harmful state of mind toward his wife. We shall see.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen work with cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.
Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.
Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims. Allen Browning is an attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI) , Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.
Attorney Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.
Sources for more information:http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-justices-toss-out-facebook-threats-conviction#.dnw2xjpWdg
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/3757058-supreme-court-throws-out-conviction-facebook-threats
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/true-threats-and-the-limits-of-first-amendment-protection
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-ranting-facebook-not-crime-n367676
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/01/us-usa-court-crime-idUSKBN0OH2OL20150601
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-983_7l48.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment