stanley di was frustrated with his attorney and i think it's fair to say as it turns frustrated with him as well what began as a polite discussion of a ongoing criminal case dissolved into an argument when mr vice attorney told mr dodd that she believed he had been truthful with her and as a result she had found evidence that was not helpful to his case and had disclosed that evidence to the state issues required do this mean mr di feel like she wasn't fighting for him that she was advocating more for the state and he told her that mr dodd is a very passionate person missile you see has a true knew that from previous experiences with mystery and he was wild when he was expressing his frustration with what his attorney had but rather than trying cal situation his attorney intentionally spoke over him trying to be louder than mr bite and their argument continued he continued to the point that misplacing order mr guy to get up from his chair spit out his toothpick and leave her office her and towards the exit of the public defender office and mr guy was still frustrated on his way towards the exit he said several things such as misleads he was trying to put him away that she was in week with the state but she wasn't working for him that she was he wasn't exactly sure what it was though mr di's the only one that testified as to be explicit explicit nature of what he said once that miss lacy asked him if she was being threatened but because of her role as mr dyce attorney and the court was right to have these concerns generally whenever a defendant prosecute for or threatening a public official the statement that underlies that charge probably a public official statute is implemented to prohibit the owner supreme court when it looked at the work threat and the intimidation statute said that the threat should have a reasonable tendency to create apprehension and told the dispatcher that he was that he had a boat for daily present her marriage ably and that he had a specific date and time that daily was going to be shot that is the type of threat the statute was implemented checked against not these general statements where no one knows exactly what mr di meant in the state can't prove what he meant in people versus partly a federal case that is sudden the briefs as well the court looked at a letter that was sent from an attorney or from the client to his attorney the client was upset with the attorney and the client wrote to the attorney and said once i get my case and certain posture you're going to be the first s o b to go and the defendant was convicted of transmitting a  review in court looked at that and said no this isn't a right this is the sort of thing a attorney should count on receiving from a disgruntled client this isn't the sort of threat the statute was implemented to protect against and all of the settlements stated not just by media by the judge that ultimately convicted by the judge said in my opinion it's overly broad i could think of a number of instances where i've had people say they're going to get me and it's not a specific threat they're just really irritated at me for one reason or another but the general statement i'm going to give you in the heat of the argument i seriously question whether that's what the legislature  the judge saying very confused about the proper standards that apply to this case and whether di should be convicted on several occasions the court went so far as to say that he hopes that a reviewing court that examines this case will fact that this was a very general statement questions also remain regarding whether this was a statement that was directed exactly see as a public official and her office as the her million county public defender again the the court expressed some concern about sentence on this point the court said there's a real legal question which i'm sure is going to be addressed by a court of review as to whether when a public official service counsel for a defendant if the argument is directly related to their relationship as an attorney client whether it's in fact that constitutes the type of public duty that was intended by the legislature and what the court is referencing there is the requirement that the state prove that the threat has to be related to an official public status that is not what we have in this case what we have in this case is a defendant who is upset at his attorney's representation of himself in court he's upset at the way that is the procedural maneuvers that his attorney is taking he's upset his attorneys just turned evidence it's going to her scream ok it's over to the state and he's expressing that dissatisfaction as is walking from the public defender's office to the rest of the main courthouse when he's saying things such lacy was trying to put him away or was in league with the state or was working out for him but with the state are trying to sell him out these are things that have anything to do with their status as a public official or things have anything to do with their status as  these are things that he is communicating his frustration about the representation of him in his case this is the type of argument that probably takes place daily or weekly through offices in illinois when attorneys and their clients get together as i said during my opening remarks attorneys and quite sometimes disagree with the way they handle cases di was simply expressing his frustration at what his attorney had done held that once the appointment of a public defender in a given cases made his public or state function ceases and thereafter he functions purely as a private attorney concerned with serving his client now granted because mis appoint represent i that doesn't mean that she's no longer the vermillion become a public defender but there is a sense of loyalty there that when she is appointed to represent died she becomes his advocate there's a fiduciary relationship there and for a lack of a better way to put it she's essentially hats she is a public official but she's also acting as ties attorney diking criticize her actions as his attorney without criticizing her as a public official and that's exactly what he was doing in the  ensure the state of the dire need in this case were not made because of her public duty it was maybe because he was frustrated with her he was voicing his concern with what she had done in his case and it's worth noting that whenever you're looking at threatening a public official case the president says you must look at the contacts in which a statement was made clearly di was upset here he was saying many things he and his attorney had just been an argument this was a one sided thing both of them had raised their voices it had gotten the attention of the other employees of the public defender's office in this context the statement is begged in general stay but i'm going to get you doesn't convey anything else other than his dissatisfaction with her representation you know as i said those were concerns that even the circuit court noted when it convicted guy there's yet another concern in this case the court of human touch on and to some extent it shadows the the arguments i've already mentioned and that is the idea that the threat of a public official statute deals with persimmon and the state cannot prescribe lawful first amendment con conduct or statements as a result go back and look at all the cases that have dealt with threatening a public official as i said they all make fairly specific detail threats they do that because there's an exception to the first amendment right that we all have and that this when it comes to a public or to a  true threat a true threat is a threat that encompasses statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual the way that threatening a public official statute in the first mimicking co exist his because all of the offenses all of the statements that lay at the foundation of the thread in the public official charges and in convictions are true threats if someone makes a threat tha isn't a true threat and the prosecutor under the threat of a public official statute there's a very real first amendment argument that the public official statute doesn't pass constitutional muster as apply here whether it's because the threat was too general to constitute a threat multiple times and he was also pointing his finger down at the at the same time so it's it has to has to do with the context the tone and loudness of the voice the anger all that in combination can be considered with respect to  they say who actually did fear the defendant because of this statement whether that fear of future badly harm was in fact reasonable and because of the combination of all those things the context  not like a sporting event or something which would make the word a lot more innocuous as the defendant misuse in her office he was mad at her he was perceiving that she was being disloyal to him and in those respects the defend his word takes on the meaning of the dictionary meaning of get meaning to take vengeance on and specifically meaning to kill and that is something that can be reasonably construed from that word and so specificity does not apply so therefore even though the big is subtle i'm sorry the threat is subtle it is still nonetheless for him to thread under threatening public official statute and the the and therefore the judge can disbelieve that does not have to accept the credibility of the statement and the defendant's reply response that somehow that the state that his statement was so big that she had to ask lisi had to ask whether he was threatening or not the the word i will not use the profanity but the f word that went preceded inside that when she asked if he was threatening her essentially the way she said it was she could not believe that her own construction has to be drawn on appeal and said the combination of the condom the finger pointing down not just what he said adds to the meaning so with respect to the judge's request for guidance it soon the judge was quite troubled by what the judge perceived to be the actual state of the law and i know there was some sense there was some legislative history on this point but essentially it just personal views are threats for these types of public officials do qualify the judge outside of question is whether this was kind of a closer question whether the the public official was acting as a public official at the time or simply whether the threat was related to the n representation of an internet defendant is a representation of indigence by a court appointed attorney is considered a performance of the public duty and that was citing the united states versus dylan case ninth circuit nine hundred sixty five as being a situation where the government doesn't have to pay for the performance of a public duty it's already that's essentially the question it was an issue there and because representing a court appointed attorney representing indigent defendants is a public duty somebody an attorney last what happens when someone is appointed be a court appointed attorney they are still performing a public duty yes they do have private duties that they owe because to defend it because they are serving as that defense lawyer but that is not biggest gripes was the fact that lacy who is the actual public defender at the time was refusing to appoint him a different lawyer and lacey had described the process for her her office's policy she would not assign she chooses the certain responsibilities the public and her defender and she's not going to change that once it's made so the defendant did not like that so he is angry at her for the nonperformance of her public duty as the county public defender to make assignments of cases to the various either to herself or other public defenders under her supervision so even if this is not just limited to the fact that he was representing the defendant and subpoenaed evidence that turned out to be incriminating eyes more than that because she's lost the county public defender still at the same time responsible for simon's with respect to the first amendment this court cannot reach that issue unless this court also finds first that the evidence was sufficient containing a threat that would place the public official reasonable apprehension of future bodily harm what this means is a defendant must know that his official would place that that his communication is a threat and that would place the public official reasonable apprehension future the statute requires that the apprehension of harm people reasonable and again it's where this has comes back to the context of what should happen died his attorney just had an argument di is upset the state in its  has and during argument has alluded to the fact that lacy when the point in the public defender however di never says that he was upset and his comment that i'm going to get you had anything to do with that in fact it read in its context the statements that he made as he was exiting the public defender suite of offices seems to show that he what he was upset about was the fact that his attorney had just given this evidence to the say it makes perfect sense when you look at statements like lacy was trying to put him away she was in league with the state you're not working for me you're working with the state against me those are comments that somebody would make when they've just been told that their attorney has given damaging evidence to the state evidence that could very well lead to their conviction darkover states that he was upset her the the words that you use were result of his belief that lacy was a public official and was in her capacity as a public official denying him a right to another turn in fact lacy told i we go court hearing the next day you can tell the judge that you want a new attorney that guy showed up for that court hearing it was as though he didn't believe that he'd ever threaten lacy which i don't think that's an unreasonable believe his statement really wasn't threatening given the context of what's just happened between him and lacy the state talks about this roy case that dealt with the threat against the president of the united states the important thing to remember about this case is dion lacy had a relationship the defendant roy i think with gas didn't personally know the president of the united states when he was making that threat di was making his statement because of this relationship this would you share a relationship that he had with lacey and there was something about that relationship he didn't agree with what he said was just a mere expression of his frustration it wasn't something like the williams fairly clearly shows that i was upset with the decision that his attorney had made in his case regardless of who his attorney was if it was a public official or if it was the chief of defender of the count lacy did have private use to digest ethical duties to die and that's what we what they were discussing in the context of their attorney client relationship that started this whole argument in the first place she had received the seven and she had to turn it over to the state die statement again was general i'm going to give you and there are many cases which examined factual situations on either side of that statement the majority of the cases require there to be some sort of clear detailed threat saying i'm going to shoot you or i don't know where you live and i'm going to come after you and do something to you the case is that although that standard are cases where a threat conviction based on  threat cannot be sustained such as the barclay case that i talked about earlier where he threatened his attorney or his attorney would be the next one to go courts don't find those sorts of statements have the necessar specificity to be a rat and that's why again the threatening a public official statute can live in harmony with the first amendment if a conviction can be satisfied based on an individual saying i'm going to beat you without any further context or explaining what that statement means or further than that explain that statement is a violent rat a true threat than the threatening a public official statute in this case runs