United States v. James Hobgood
868 F.3d 744 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Speech that is integral to criminal conduct, such as extortion, is not protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, applying the federal interstate stalking statute to a defendant whose conduct also constitutes extortion does not violate their free speech rights.
Facts:
- In September 2014, James Daniel Hobgood and KB had a brief romantic relationship in Richmond, Virginia.
- After KB rebuffed Hobgood's advances, she moved to Arkansas in January 2015.
- Hobgood, still living in Virginia, began contacting KB electronically, demanding an in-person apology for her treatment of him.
- When KB refused to apologize, Hobgood created public social media accounts falsely portraying her as an exotic dancer and prostitute.
- Hobgood also sent letters to KB's employer making these same false claims.
- He then contacted KB and her family, threatening to continue these actions unless she apologized.
- Hobgood's conduct caused KB substantial emotional distress, which contributed to her needing short-term hospitalization.
- When contacted by law enforcement, Hobgood admitted to the communications and stated he would not stop until KB lost her job or 'repented'.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted James Daniel Hobgood in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for interstate stalking.
- Hobgood filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute was unconstitutional as applied to his conduct.
- The district court, a trial court, denied the motion to dismiss.
- Hobgood entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion.
- The district court sentenced Hobgood to imprisonment and ordered restitution.
- Hobgood (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 the application of the federal interstate stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2), to a defendant's conduct that involves threats to injure a person's reputation unless they provide an apology violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Colloton, Circuit Judge
No, the application of the federal interstate stalking statute does not violate the First Amendment in this case. The court reasoned that while the First Amendment generally protects speech from content-based restrictions, there is a well-established exception for 'speech integral to criminal conduct.' The court determined that Hobgood's speech, which formed the basis of his stalking conviction, also constituted the crime of extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d). It rejected Hobgood's argument that an apology is not a 'thing of value,' holding that the term includes intangible things and focuses on the value the defendant subjectively attaches to what they seek. Because Hobgood's communications were extortionate, they are not protected speech, and his conviction under the stalking statute was therefore constitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that the First Amendment does not protect speech used to commit a crime. It clarifies that for the 'speech integral to criminal conduct' exception to apply, the defendant need not be formally charged with or convicted of the underlying crime (here, extortion). The case also broadens the interpretation of a 'thing of value' in extortion statutes to include intangible, subjective benefits like a forced apology. This precedent strengthens the government's ability to prosecute online stalking and harassment, particularly where coercive threats are used, by providing a clear path to overcome First Amendment defenses.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. James Hobgood