New trial possible in online 'threat' case
We read:
"A construction worker charged with threatening to strangle Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley could get a new trial, after a special appeals court ruled last week that a Baltimore County trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the difference between threats and political speech. Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler must now decide whether to appeal to Maryland's highest court or send the case back to Baltimore County to be retried.
Walter C. Abbott Jr. of Parkville, Md., was convicted in October 2008 of making a criminal threat and sentenced to six months in jail, a $500 fine and two years' unsupervised probation. The jail time was suspended.
The case arose in March 2008 after Mr. Abbott sent a message via the governor's Web site, which solicited constituent feedback. Claiming he was angry that his business was hurt by the governor's immigration and labor policies, Mr. Abbott wrote: "If I ever get close enough to you, I will wrap my hands around your throat and strangle the life from you."
After rejecting a plea offer of probation before judgment, Mr. Abbott was convicted by a Baltimore County jury - but without the jury receiving a critical instruction from Judge Dana M. Levitz. "I find it disgusting, I find it outrageous," Judge Levitz said at trial, refusing a request by Mr. Abbott's lawyer that he instruct the jury on the difference between a threat and free speech. "It doesn't make any difference that you say 'because I disagree with his politics.' The law doesn't permit that."
The appeals court disagreed. "The [judge] never informed the jury that only a true threat falls within the statute, and that political vitriol may fall outside its ambit," the three-judge panel wrote. "The [judge] should have instructed the jury as to the requirement of a true threat, which is distinguished from constitutionally protected free speech."
Source
3 comments:
Well, at least there are some judges in Maryland who still believe in the Constitution. "Judge" Levitz should be sent back to chasing ambulances.
What was he thinking? You can't talk to your masters that way.
What was he thinking? He was thinking of threatening a public official.
According to the Appeals Court, this is what he wrote to the governor:
The commentator's name was requested in four categories (prefix, first, last, and suffix). Appellant typed his name as "FUCK Walter Carl Abbott YOU." He provided his actual address and phone number in the appropriate fields. Under the category for "Organization Name," appellant typed "FUCKING SOLD OUT AMERICAN," and he identified his relationship to this organization as "president." He did not fill out the request for "my correspondence topic" or "subject." The text of his electronic message was as follows:
O'Malley, getting ready to lose my wife after 24 years of marri[a]ge. 3rd construction co. & 2nd house I am going to lose because of no good fucking government like you and pieces of shit like you. If i [sic] ever get close enough to yoy [sic], I will rap [sic] my hands around your throat and strangle the life from you. This will solve many problems for true AMERICAN'S [sic]. Maybe you can send your MEXICAN army after me, you no good AMERICAN SELL OUT PIECE OF SHIT. I HOPE YOU DROP DEAD BEFORE I GET TO YOU, I WOULD HATE TO TO [sic] LOSE MY LIFE BECAUSE OF A PIECE OF SHIT LIKE YOU. FUCK YOU TRULY
WALTER C. ABBOTT JR.
On the stand, the guy basically admitted that his words were a threat, but that he didn't know that it was illegal to threaten a public official.
Ignorance is no excuse.
The Appeals Court basically said that a "true threat" is not protected by "political speech." What the court then went on to say is that the context of the threat - whether it can be seen as purely political speech - should be considered. The trial judge only instructed the jury to consider whether the threat was true, without considering the surrounding conversation.
In other words, the jury may consider the surrounding speech as to whether the threat was a "true threat," but a "true threat" is not protected political free speech.
Post a Comment