Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01604/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01604-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John William Bailey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

. - . 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit, 

JAN 3 G 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 88-1604 

JOHN WILLIAM BAILEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D.C. No. 87-20090-01) 

) ( D. Kan. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant John William Bailey was convicted for threatening 

the President in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 87l(a) (1982). He 

argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his 

motion for acquittal and in its instructions to the jury. 

Defendant claims that the court should have granted his 

motion for acquittal because the alleged threats were in fact 

protected political and religious speech. This court has held 

that whether a statement is a "true threat" or political speech is 

one for the jury. See United States v. Leaverton, 835 F.2d 254, 

257 (10th Cir. 1987); United States v. Crews, 781 F.2d 826, 832 

(10th Cir. 1986). We have reviewed the record in this case, and 

conclude there was ample evidence presented at trial to send this 

issue to the jury. We are not persuaded by defendant's argument 

Appellate Case: 88-1604 Document: 01019962428 Date Filed: 01/30/1989 Page: 1 
V ' - ),o 

that punishing threats made by a patient in a mental hospital does 

not further any objective of 18 U.S.C. § 87l(a). The requirement 

t hat the statement be a "true threat" adequately restricts the 

r each of the statute. 

Defendant also challenges the jury instructions, arguing that 

the cou rt did not adequately advise the jury of the extent to 

which t he First Amendment protected his statements. The second 

paragraph o f Instruction No. 7, however, is identical to the 

instruction we approved in Leaverton for the purpose of 

distinguishing between true threats and political speech. Rec., 

Vol. I, Doc . 20 at 7 . See Leaverton, 835 F.2d at 257. 

The j udgment below i s AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circu i t Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1604 Document: 01019962428 Date Filed: 01/30/1989 Page: 2