Roy v. United States
416 F.2d 874 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A threat against the President is made 'willfully' under 18 U.S.C. § 871 if the defendant intentionally makes a statement that a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted as a serious expression of an intent to inflict bodily harm or death, regardless of the defendant's actual subjective intent to carry out the threat.
Facts:
- Albert Richard Roy, Jr., a Private First Class in the U.S. Marine Corps, was stationed at Camp Pendleton and was upset about being reassigned against his wishes.
- The President of the United States was scheduled to arrive at Camp Pendleton the following day.
- While other Marines were joking about the President's visit, Roy went to a pay telephone.
- Roy called the operator and stated either, "tell the President that he should not come aboard the base or he would be killed," or "I hear the President is coming to the base. I am going to get him."
- The telephone operator became frightened and immediately notified her supervisor.
- About a minute later, Roy used the phone again, gave a fictitious name, and then claimed he told the operator the initial statement was a joke, a claim the operator testified she did not hear.
- Roy then gave his true name to the operator to place a collect call.
- Roy was taken into custody later that evening.
Procedural Posture:
- Albert Richard Roy, Jr. was charged in a federal district court with violating 18 U.S.C. § 871 for threatening the life of the President.
- After a non-jury trial (a bench trial), the trial court found Roy guilty.
- Roy, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the United States Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a statement constitute a 'willful' threat against the President under 18 U.S.C. § 871 if it is made in a context where a reasonable person would interpret it as serious, even if the speaker later claims it was a joke and did not subjectively intend to carry it out?
Opinions:
Majority - Pregerson, District Judge
Yes. A statement constitutes a willful threat if a reasonable person would foresee its interpretation as a serious expression of an intention to harm the President, irrespective of the speaker's subjective intent. The court reasoned that the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 871 is not only to prevent actual assaults but also to prevent the detrimental effect and disruption that threats have on presidential activities. Therefore, the statute does not require proof that the defendant actually intended to carry out the threat. The proper standard is an objective one: whether a reasonable person, hearing the statement in its context, would perceive it as a serious threat. Here, an anonymous call from a military base just hours before a presidential visit would cause a reasonable person to foresee it would be taken seriously. A subsequent claim that the threat was a 'joke' does not automatically negate its willfulness, as the listener has no reliable way to gauge the speaker's sincerity and the initial harm of the threat has already occurred.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an objective standard for the 'willfulness' requirement of the presidential threat statute, focusing on the foreseeable effect of the words on a reasonable listener rather than the speaker's subjective intent. This interpretation broadens the statute's reach and makes prosecution easier, as the government is not burdened with proving the defendant's secret intent to cause harm. The ruling emphasizes the unique disruptive potential of threats against the President and prioritizes the need to prevent such disruption over protecting speech that, in context, appears menacing.
Unlock the full brief for Roy v. United States