United States v. David L. Hoffman
1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33802, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 1295, 806 F.2d 703 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement constitutes a criminally punishable "true threat" under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) if a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by its recipients as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm. The government is not required to prove that the defendant subjectively intended to carry out the threat.
Facts:
- David Hoffman was a follower of the religious leader Reverend Sun Yung Moon.
- Hoffman was concerned that President Reagan had imprisoned Reverend Moon and believed the President should have pardoned him.
- On December 17, 1984, the White House mail room received an unsigned letter.
- The letter read, 'Ronnie, Listen Chump! Resign or You’ll Get Your Brains Blown Out,' and included a crude drawing of a pistol firing a bullet.
- Forensic analysis, including indentation analysis and handwriting comparison, identified Hoffman as the author of the letter.
- Upon his arrest on December 28, 1984, Hoffman stated that 'the letter wasn’t signed and could be forged' and that 'he didn’t know it was against the law to threaten the President.'
Procedural Posture:
- David Hoffman was indicted in federal district court on the charge of threatening the President in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 871(a).
- Prior to trial, Hoffman filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence related to his religious and political views, which the district court denied.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty against Hoffman.
- The district court sentenced Hoffman to four years of imprisonment.
- Hoffman appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 letter stating the President must 'Resign or You'll Get Your Brains Blown Out,' combined with evidence of the author's motive stemming from his religious affiliation, constitute a 'true threat' punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffey, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the letter constitutes a 'true threat' under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). The statute requires the government to prove an objective 'true threat,' which is a statement made in a context where a reasonable person would foresee it being interpreted as a serious expression of intent to harm the President. The government does not need to prove the defendant actually intended to carry out the threat. Hoffman's statement was a clear and unambiguous threat, and the evidence of his religious affiliation was properly admitted to establish a motive—retaliation for the imprisonment of Reverend Moon—which is probative of his intent to make a 'true threat.' Any potential prejudice from this evidence was mitigated by the trial court's thorough voir dire, which screened for jurors biased against Hoffman's religion. The conditional nature of the threat does not negate its criminal character.
Dissenting - Will, Senior District Judge
No, the letter did not constitute a 'true threat.' The evidence of Hoffman's religious affiliation was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, and its admission was an abuse of discretion. Disagreeing with the President over the imprisonment of a religious leader does not make it more probable that Hoffman's letter was a 'true threat' rather than crude political speech protected by the First Amendment. Even with this improper evidence, the government failed to meet its burden under Watts v. United States, as there was no corroborating evidence of intent, such as plans to travel, weapon ownership, or detailed schemes. The letter itself was phrased conditionally and in the passive voice, making it more of a distasteful prediction than a direct threat from the author.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the objective 'reasonable person' standard for determining what constitutes a 'true threat,' focusing on the effect on the recipient rather than the speaker's subjective intent to commit violence. It affirms that evidence of motive, including a defendant's religious or political beliefs, is admissible to prove the 'willfulness' element of the offense, provided the court takes steps to mitigate unfair prejudice. The decision highlights the judiciary's struggle to balance the protection of even offensive and vitriolic political speech under the First Amendment against the compelling government interest in protecting the President from threats that cause disruption and require a security response.
