## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, C ross-A pp ellee, v . W I L L I A M W HIT E , D efend a nt-A pp ellee, Cros s -Appe l l ant
.
A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:08- cr-00851- 1

—L ynnA delm an, Judge
.
A RG UE D J UNE 8, 2012

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 26, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. P ER C UR I AM . Wi l l i a m W hi t e wa s c ha r g e d wi th s o l i c i t i ngt h e c o mmi s s i o n o fa v i o l e n tfe d e r a lc r i me aga i nst a j urori n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 37 3. The al l ege d sol i ci tat i ons at i ssue w ere m ess age s that W hi te poste d to a websi te that he cr eat ed to advance w hi te suprem acy, whi chi nc l ude d W hi te’ s 2 00 5 st at ementtha t “[ e] ve r y o ne ass oci ate d w i th the M attH ale t ri alhas deser ved as sas -2 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 si nati on f ora l ong ti m e,” a n d h i s 2 008 pu bl i cati on o f i nf o r m at i o n r el at ed to the f o r epe r so n, “ J ur o rA, ” o fthe j ury th at con victed H ale. Th e 2008 p ost d isclosed J uror A ’s h o me a d d r e s s a n d mob i l e , h o me , a n d w o r kp h o n e n u mber s, though i t did not conta i n an expli ci t re ques t fo r J ur o rA t o b e h a r med

. W hi te w as tr i ed and convi cted bya ju ry . W hi te then filed a R u le 29 m ot ion for e n tr y of a j u d gm en t o f ac q u itt al, ar gu in g t h at th e e vid en c e w as ins u fficie n t t o c o n vic t h im o fs o l i ci ta ti o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the mot i o n, fi ndi ngtha t th e g o ve r nm en t f ai led to pr es en t su ffi ci en t evi dence f ora re aso nabl e j urorto co n c lu d e that W hi te w as gu il ty of crim inal sol ici ta tion, an d that W hite’s s p e e c h wa s p r o t e c t e d b y th e F i r s t Ame n d me nt
. The g o v e r nme nta pp e a l s tha trul i ng, a nd Whi t e h a s fi l e d a cro ss- appeal urg i ng a new tr i ali f w e re ver se the j ud gme n t o f a c q u i t t a l

. A ft e r r e v i e w i n g th e t r i a l r e c o r d , we co nc l ude tha t a r at i o na lj ur y c o ul d ha ve f o und b ey o nd a r ea so nable d o ubttha t, b as ed o n the c o nt en ts o fthe w ebsi te, i ts re aders hi p, and other conte xt ual f acto rs , W hite intenti onal l y s ol i ci ted a vi ol ent c ri m e a gainst J urorA bypost i ng J urorA ’s p ersonali nfo rm ati on o n hi s webs i te
. Cr i m i na ls o l i ci ta ti o n i s no t p rot ec te d b y the Fi rs t Am endm ent, and so w e re ver se W hi te’ s a cquit tal and reinstat e hi s co nvi cti on. A l so, bec ause W h ite is not enti tl ed to a new tr i al, we re m and fo r sente nci ng.

I . B AC KGR OUND To be st unde r st an d th e f ac ts o f th i s ca se i t is helpful to h ave so m e ba si c f am i l i ar i ty w i th ano thercas e i nvol vi ng M at th ew H al e, a w hi te suprem aci st convi ctedN os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 3 of s olic i t a t i on u n d er 18 U .S.C . § 37 3. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971 ( 7th Cir. 2006) (per cu riam ). The defe nd ant in that case l ed a white sup re m aci st or gani zati on know n as the W or l d C hurch of th e Cre ato r ( “Wor l d Chur ch ”)
. A re l i g i o us o r g an i za ti o n o per at i ng u n d er the nam e “ Ch urch o fthe Creat or ” s ued W or ld Ch urch f ortr adem ar k infr i ngem ent in federa lco urt. Both part i es m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent a nd J ud ge J o anLe fk o w gr an te d the mot i o n of H al e’ s o r g an i za ti o n, W or l d Church. Bu t w e re ver sed and r em anded for judgm en t to be ent ered i n favor of Ch urc h of th e Crea tor. A fte r Ju d ge L efk ow a b id ed by ou r in st ru c tio n s, H ale i nfo rm ed hi s fo llow ers that they were “in a s tat e o fwar w i th this fe deralj ud ge. ” Id. at 978. H e then se nt an em ai lto Tony Evol a, a coo perat i ng witne ss w h o had in fi l tr ate d W or l d C hurch, r equesting the hom e a dd re ss ofJu d ge L efkow. One day l ate r, Evol a a nd H al e m et. Evo l a as k ed H al e i fthe y wer e “g o nna ex term i na te the r at
. ” H al e an swe r ed, “ I ’ m g o nna fi g htwi th i n the l aw” but “tha t i nf o r m at i o n’ s be en. . . pr o vi ded” s o “ [ i ] fy o u wi sh ” to “d o a n y th in g y ou rs elf, yo u ca n, you kn ow ? ” E vo la r e s po nd e d, “ Co ns i de ri tdo ne , ” to w hi c h Ha l e r e pl i e d,

“ Go o d. ” Id. at9 79
. A j ur y c o nv i ct ed H al e f o r, a m o ng o th e rth i n g s , c r i mi n a l l y s o l i c i t i n gh a r m t o J u d g e L e fk o w, an d he re ce i ve d a se nt en ce of40 y ea r s i n pr i so n. Id. at 982. The f or epers on of t h at j ury w as “J urorA , ” the ta rg et of the a l l ege d sol i ci tat i on in thi s ca se. W i l l i a m W hi t e i s a n a v i d s up po r t e ro fMat the w Hal e. A n acti ve w hi te suprem aci st, W hi te cre ate d and serv ed as edi toro fa w ebsi te, Over thro w . com , wh ich s ou ght t o ad van ce tha t ca us e. On F eb r ua r y 2 8, 2 00 5, o nl y ho urs4 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209

N ei ther H ale nor W hit e ( nor anyone connecte d to ei ther 1 of them ) w as resp on sible f or the m u rd ers. aft er Ju d ge L efk ow ’s h u sb an d an d m ot h er w er e t ra gic ally m urdere d, W hi te applauded the cr i m es on hi s w eb site.

1 H e wrot e, “E ve ryone ass oci ate d w i th the M attH al e t ri al h a s d e s e r v e d a s s a s s i n a t i o nf o r a l o n gt i me . . . . In my vi ew , i twa s c l e a r l y j u s t, a n d Il o o kf o r wa r d t o s ee i ng who el se thi s ne w w hi te na tio na l i stg r o up o fa ss as sins kil l s next. ” N ot l ong after w ar d, i n M ar ch 200 5, W hi te des cr ibe d a n e m ai l, c i r cul at i ngo n the i nt erne t, tha t co nta i ne d the pe r so na li den ti fi ca ti o n inf o r m at i o n ofthe FB I ag en ts an d p ro se c u to rs (“s c u m b ag s” ) w h o inv es tigat ed and prose cuted H al e. W hi te note d that they m i ght b e th e “n ext t ar get s o fthe unknow n nati onal i st ass ass i n w h o ki l l ed the f am i l y o fChica go J ud ge J oan Lefk ow.” H e e xplained on hi s w eb si te that he would not disc l ose the age nts’ a n d pro secuto rs ’ per sonali nfo rm ati on, however, be cause ther e was “s o gr eata potenti al for ac tio n link ed to su c h p os tin g.” On Febr uary13 , 20 07, W hi te pu b lish ed on hi s websi te th e a d d r e s s o fE l i e Wi e s e l, a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y kn o wn H ol oca ust s urvi vor, “In Case Anyone W as Looking F or H i m . ” W hi te prai sed E ri c H unt, “a fan of[the] websi te, ” a s a “ l oya lso l die r” f orat tack i ng W i ese la few days e ar l i er, o n F eb r ua r y 1
. W hi te pr es en te d s i m i l ari nf o r m at i o n abo ut si x bl ack tee nager s in J ena, Loui si ana in S eptem ber20 07, sugge sting tha t they b e “ l ynch[ ed]” f or t h ei r i nvol vem en t i n a s ch o o l y ar d fi g httha t g arne r ed na ti o na la tt en ti o n due t o i ts r ac i alo ve rtone s. He c o nt i nue d thi s tr en d i n 2 0 0 8 b y po s t i ng the pe r s o na l i nfo r mat i on o fi nd i v i d-N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 5

W hit e m ove d i n l i m i ne t o pr eve ntthe s e pos t s fro m r ea c hi ng 2 the jury , b u t th e d istrict cou rt d en ied his requ est b eca u se the posts ev id en ced W hit e’ s int ent, or were direc t e vidence ofthe “s tr ongly co rr obo rat ive c ir cum st ances ” requi red und er § 3 73 , or both. ual s whom he l abel ed “anti

- ra ci st” o r “enem i es” o f w hite su pr emac y . One su ch post, “K il l R ichard W a r man, ” a dv o c a t e d the mur de ro fa n o t e d C a na di an ci vi lr i ghts l aw yer . That par ti cul arm es sa ge co uld be a c c e s s ed from an y p ag e o n th e w eb sit e b ec au se it co u ld b e r e t r i e v e d u s i n ga h y p e r l i n kl o c a t e d i n a s t a t i c c o l u mn of the si te, cal l ed “Top A rt i cl es. ” A nother pos t

— “K ill This N i gge r?”

— co nt aine d i m ag es o fa nd a r ti cl es abo ut th en -p re sid en tia l ca n d id at e B ar ac k O b am a. O n e a r t icle displ aye d a photog ra ph o f the presi dential candidate w ith sw ast i ka- shaped cro sshai rs superi m posed ov er hi s f a c e , a n d s t a t e d th a t“ Whi t e p e o p l e mu s td en y

2 [ BarackObam a] the presi dency .

. . by any m eans necessa ry .” Tho se po st i ng s, ho wev er, wer e m er e pr elude t o the co nduc t thatg o t W hi te i ndi ct ed f o rc r i m i na ls o l i ci ta ti o n. OnS eptemb e r1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , Whi t e a utho r e d a p o s tt i t l e d, “The J urorW ho Convi cted M attH al e. ” I n it , he dis cl ose d per so na l, i den ti fy i ngi nf o r m at i o n abo utJ ur o rA. The po s tr e a d: Gay anti

- ra ci st [ J urorA ] was a j uro r w ho pl aye d a key role in con victing M att H ale. Born [ d ate], [ he/ she] l i ves at [ add re ss] w i th [ hi s/her] ga y blackl o ve ra nd [ hi s/he r ] c at[ na m e]
. [ H i s/H er]6 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 pho ne nu m beri s [ pho ne numbe r ] , c el lpho ne [ pho ne number ] , an d [ hi s/he r ] o ffi ce i s [phon e n u m b er ]. T he pos t furth er stated th a t the “gay Jew ish [J uror A ], w h o h as a ga y b lac k lov er an d tie s t o p ro f es sio n al a n tir aci s tg r o up s , a nd wh o a l s o p e r s o na l l y kne w [ a n i nd i v i dual ] ki l l ed b y B en S m i th, a f ol l ower o fH al e, was al l owed to s i t o n h i s j ur y wi th o utc ha ll eng e an d pl ay ed a l ea di ng ro l e in i nc iti ng bo th the co nvi cti on a nd har sh se ntence tha tf o l l o we d. ” Th e e nt r y fe a t ur e d a c o l o rp ho t o g r a ph o fJ u r o rA. One day l ate r, W hi te uploa ded an i denti calm ess age to a d i ffer en t po r ti o n o fthe web si te
. The po stc ar r i ed th e ti tl e: “[ J urorA ] U p d at ed

- Since They Blo cked the fi rs t photo. ” Ap parently, J urorA ’ s e m ployer had bl ock ed pu bl i c ac cess to the page o n its w ebsi te that conta i ned i nfo rm ati on ab ou t Ju ro r A and the col orphoto gr aph of th e j uror th at ap p eared i n W hite’s fi rst p ost. W hi te’s seco nd postst ated , “ N ote that[ Em plo yer ] bl ock ed m uch o f[ J ur o rA’ s] i nf o r m at i o n a fte rwe l i nk ed to [ hi s/he r] photog ra ph.” The photo gr aph ofJ urorA thatappeare d w a s e m b e d d ed in t h e O ve rth ro w se rv er so th at on ly W hi te coul d rem ove i t. On O cto ber22 , 20 08, a g ra n d j ury i nd i cted W hi te f or sol i ci ti ng the co m m i ssi on o fa vi ol ent federa lo ffense ag ains t J ur o rA i n v i o l at i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 73
. The i nd ictm en t ch arged that W hite h a d “ soli cited and otherw ise end eavored to pers ua d e ano th er pe rson to injure J u r o r A o n a c c o u n t o f a v e r d i c t a s s e n t e d t o b y J u r o r A, i n vi ol ati on of T i tl e 1 8, U ni ted S tat es Code 1503

. ” See a lsoN os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 7 18 U
. S. C. § 1 503 ( outl aw in g inj uri ng o r thre ate ni ng to inj ure a fede ral j uror). A gran d j ury return ed a su p ersedi ng i nd i ctm en t ag ainst W hi te on F ebr uary10 , 20 09. W hi te m ove d to dism i ss the ind ict m ent, and the dist ri ct cou rt grante d his m otion after f in d ing tha t W hite’s i nt erne t po st i ng s wer e pr o te ct ed spe ec h a nd tha t th e i ndi ct m en t f ai l ed to s uffi ci en tly a ll eg e “c o r r o bo r at i ng ci rcum sta nces” ofW hi te’ s cr i m i nali ntent. The g o ve r nm en t appe al ed

. W e r ev er se d b ec au se the i nd i c t men t wa s f a c i a l l y v a l i d a nd W hi t e ’ s F i r s tA m en dm ent r i ghts w er e pr ote cted bythe gov er nm ent’ s bur den to pr o ve beyond a r ea so nabl e do ubttha t W hi te ha d the re q u isit e in te n t fo r c rim in al s olic ita tio n . U ni t ed S ta tes v. W hi te, 6 1 0 F.3d 956, 961 (7th Cir. 2010) (per cu riam ). As we e xp l a i ne d: The gove r nm en t i nf o r m ed us a t o r ala r g um en t th at it h as furth er eviden ce of the w ebsite’s read ershi p, aud ience, and the re l ati onshi p between W hi te a n d h i s f o l l o we r s wh i c h wi l ls h o w t he p os tin g w as a sp ec ific re q u e s t t o W h ite ’s fo llow ers, w ho u nd erstood that requ est an d w ere capabl e a nd wil l i ng to act o n i t. Thi s e vi dence is not l ai d out in the i nd i ctm ent a nd does not ne ed to b e. The e xi st en ce o fs tr o ng l y c o r r o bo r at i ng circum stan ces ev incing W hite’s inten t i s a j ury questi on. . . . The go ver nm ent has the burden to prove , bey ond a r eas onable d ou bt, thatW hi te in t e nd ed , throu gh his post ing of Juror A ’s personal i nfo rm ati on, to r equest som eone el se to harm J urorA
. A fterthe p rosec uti on pre sents i ts8 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209

c as e, the c ourtm ay deci de that a r eas onable j uror coul d not co ncl ud e that W hi te’ s intent w as f orhar m to bef al lJ urorA , and not m er el y e l ectr oni c o r verbalhar ass m ent. Id. at 96 2 (in te rn al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ). On r emand, W hi te was t r i ed be fore an a no ny m o us j ury. The go ver nm ent o ffer ed as evi dence the postin gs m ade b y W hi te tha t we de sc r ibe d abo ve . The g o ve r nm en t al so c al l ed se ve r alwi tn es se s. F BIS pec i alA gen t Pa ul M ess i ng testi fi ed that he i nstal l ed hi ghl y s ophis ti cate d com pu te r softw ar e o n the com pu terand ser verthat age nt s se i ze d fr o m W hi te
. The s o ftwa r e al l o wed the FBIto se ar ch f orspeci fi c ar ti cl es and w or ds that W hi te perso nal l y pos ted o n the Overthro w websi te. Offi cerJ ohn Dzi edzi c expl ai ned that an i nter net use r w ho vi si ted the Overthro w w ebsi te bef or e the sit e had been disabl ed coul d have s een a l lo fW hi te’ s pos ti ngs. The go ver nm ent a l so p re sente d the t est i m ony of Ju ro r A . Th at te st im on y est ab lish ed th at atap p ro x im at ely 9 : 3 0 a . m. o n S e pt e mbe r1 1 , 20 0 8 , J ur o rA r e c e i v e d a phone cal lfro m a tel ephone r egi ste re d to W hi te’ s wife. The m al e ca l l eras ked J urorA to co nfi rm Ju ro r A ’ s nam e, dat e o fb i r th, a ddr es s, a nd s er vi ce o n the j ur y tha t co nv i c t e d Ha l e . T h e c a l l e rd i d n o t, h o we v e r, th r e a t e n J u r o rA. Le s s tha n thi r t y mi nu t e s a ft e r the c a l l was di s c o nn e c t e d, W hite p osted J uror A ’s p erson al inform ation on Ov erth r o w. J ur o rA a l m o sti m m edi at ely b eg anr ec ei ving h arassing te xt m ess age s. The m ess age s co nveye d thi ngs like “s od om ize O b am a,” “B om b C h in a,” “k ill M c C ain ,” and “cre m ate [ ] J ew s.” Ju ro r A te sti fi ed that these m es-N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 9 sag es w er e “al l

. . . re al l y up set ti ng. ” J u ro r A r epor ted r e c e i v i n g t e x t me s s a g e s o f th e s a me n a t u r e f o r th e ne xt fe w da y s . J ur o rA wa s n o tp e r s o na l l y thr e a t e ne d, s t a l k e d, orphysi cal l y har m ed afterW hi te’ s ini ti alpost
. FBIS peci alA gent M aure en M azzo l a a l so tes ti fi ed at tr i al

. S he descr ibed w hat a n in te rnet userwh o vi ew ed th e O ve rt h ro w w eb sit e o n S ep te m b er 11 , 200 8 w ou ld ha ve seen . A c c o r d ing to her, on that da y the site’ s vi si to r s woul d h ave i m m edi at ely b ee n di r ec te d t o the post about J urorA
. They woul d not have b ee n abl e t o see W hi te’ s o therpost s unl ess theyacc ess ed them vi a hyper l i nk o r vi ew ed other port i ons ofthe w ebsi te. A ccor ding to A gent M azzo l a, a userwould have “to be ei therl oo ki ng f ori t o r re ad in g ever y s i ngl e a rt i cl e o n the websi te” to acc ess W hi te’ s o therpost s. The l asttwo w i tnesses the g ove rnm ent c al l ed to tes ti fy w er e Phil A nd er son and M i chael Bu rks. B oth w er e for m erm em ber s o fthe A m er i can N ati onal So ci al i st W or ker s P arty ( “A N SW P”) , a w hi te suprem aci st or gani zati on that W hi te or ganize d and d i re cted. A fter hi s h o me wa s s e a r c he d a nd h i s co mput e rs e i z e d, W hi t e a s k e d An de r s o n t o rea c h o utt o o the rwh i t e s up r emac i st s to fi nd o uti fthe y wer e awar e o fa ny pl an s to ha r m J ur o rA
. W hi te e xpr es se d c o nc ern tha t “s o m eo ne m ay be try in g to do so m ethi ng” t o J urorA
. A nd er son rep orted back th at his assoc iates had not seen the Juror A p o s ta n d we r e n o ta wa r e o fa n y p l a n s t o h a r m J u r o rA. O n O c to b er 2 9, 20 08 , W h ite w as arr es te d . A fte r h is ar re st, he s ent l ett er s t o both A nd er son an d B urks

. W hi te re ques te d that And er son tes ti fy r ega rdi ng “the f act that10 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 you have neverdone a nythi ng cr i m i n al, and do not i nt e r pr e ta r t i c l e s o n Ov e r thr o w. c o m a s c r i mi na li ns tr uctions.” A nd W h it e a sked Bu rks to testify abou t A N SW P’s “r ej ec ti o n o fc r i m i na la ct i vi ty an d v i o l en t cr i m e, ” an d thanked hi m f orhi s su pp or t. A t t ri al, bo th A nd er son and Bu rk s m ai ntained thatW hi te neveri nstr ucted th e m t o c om m it cri m inal acts an d they nev er i nt erpr et ed an yth i nghe po st ed o n Ov er th r o w as i ns truct i o ns to harm J uror A i n p articu lar. Bur k s, ho wev er, a ckno wl edg ed th atso m e vi o l en t w hi te suprem aci sts

— ofwh om W hi te had knowledge and app ro ved

— m i ght h ave l oo ked to Over thro w f or cri m i nali nstr ucti ons. H e ci ted t h e Richar d W ar m an post as an e xa mpl e . Acc o r di ng t o Bu r k s , i n a ddi t i o n to au th orin g th at p ost, W hite d isclosed W arm an ’s informa t i o n d u r i n ga r a d i o s h o w a n d s t a t e d a tth a tt i me tha t“ thi s b a s t a r d h a s l i v e d wa y too l o ng . I fs o meb o dy w ants to ki l lhi m , her e’ s hi s a dd re ss. ” Burks te sti fi ed th at W hi te re peated thi s s enti m ent “ tw o orthr ee ti m es, ” a n d W h ite “re ally d id n ’t c ar e if so m et h in g d id h ap p en .” B u rk s in t er p re te d th e W ar m an , W ies el, an d Jen a S ix po st s as r eque st s th atpe o pl e go ou t and do v i o l en t th i n g s . B u th e e x p r e s s l y d e n i e d e v e rs e e i n ga n y th i ng o n Ov er th r o w orhe ar i nga ny th i ngfrom W hi te tha t he u n d e r s t o o d a s a c a l lt o h a r m J u r o rA. A t the cl ose of the evi dence, the dist ri ct cour t instr ucted th e j ur y tha t th e g o ve r nm en t m ust p rove th e f o l l o wi ng el em ents beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt: F i r s t, thatthe de fe nd a nts o l i c i t e d, c o mm a nd e d, i nd uc e d, o ro the r w i s e e nd e a v o r e d t o p e r s ua de anothe r perso n to car ryo ut a vi ol ent federa lcr i m e.N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 11 S e c o n d , w i th s t r o n g l y c o r r o b o r a t i v e c i r c u msta n c es, thatthe defe nd ant intended fo r anothe r perso n to co m m i t a vi ol ent federa lcr i m e. The c o ur t al so c r afte d a F i r stAm en d m en t i ns truct i o n, whi c h c o mbi ne d t wo o f W hi t e ’ s s i x pr o po s e d F i r s tAmen dmen ti ns t r uc t i o ns . T he c o ur te xp l a i ne d: The First A m endm ent pr ote cts vehem ent, s c a th i n g, a n d o ffe n s i v e c r i t i ci sm o fo th e r s ; h o weve r, a sol i ci tat i on, co m m and , ind ucem ent, o r en dea vo rt o pe r su ade anot he rt o e ng ag e i n c o nd u c t c on st itu tin g a v iole n t fe lon y a s d efin ed in th es e instr ucti ons i s no t pr ote cted bythe Fi rs t A m endm ent. If th e p u rp os e o f th e s p ea ke r or th e ten d en c y of h is w or ds ar e di re cted t o i deas o r conse quences r em ote fro m the com m i ssi on o fthe cri m i nalact, the n the s pe e c h i s p r o t e cted by the F i r s tAmen dm ent. S pee chi s pr o te ct ed unl es s bo ththe i nt en t o fthe speake r . . . and the tendency o fhi s words was to produce o r i nci te an i m m i nent l aw l ess act
. A n i m m i nent l aw l ess acti s on e th at i s l i kel y t o occu r. A st at em en t w h ich is m er e p olit ica l hy p erb ole or a n e xp r e s s i o n o fo pini o n do e s n o tc o ns t i t ute a so l i ci ta ti o n. I f y o u f ind that the d efend an t’s statem en ts w ere no m or e than an i n d i gnant orextr em e m etho d of12 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 st ating pol i ti calo pp osi ti on t o the j urorin th e M at th ew H ale ca se , th en you are j u st ified in fi nd i ngthatn o s o l i c i t a t i o n wa s , i n f a c t, ma de and you m ay fi nd the defe nd ant no t guil ty. The j ury convi cted W hi te ofso l i ci ti ng a vio len t federa l cri m e a gainst J uror A
. W hi te fi l ed a pos t- tr i alm oti on f orj ud gm ent o facqu i tta l, r equesting i n the al ternati ve a ne w tr i al

. The di st r i ctcou rt rul ed th atthe g o ve r nm en t fai led to p resen t suffici en t evide nc e to sus tain W hit e ’s con viction. T he cou rt found that W hite’s p osts w ere not obj ecti ve so li ci tat i ons and nothi ng o n the w ebsi te “t ra n sfo rm ed ” t h em int o s olic ito u s i n st ru c tio n s. A d d iti onal l y, the cour t found that th e gover nm ent f ai l ed to p re se n t a d eq u at e e vid en c e o f se c ti o n 37 3’s “s tr on gly cor robor ati ve” ci rcum sta nces, wh i ch i s nec essar y under the s tatute t o prove i ntent. Final l y, the cour t hel d that because the gov ern m en t di d not pro ve W hi te’ s cr i m i nal inten t beyon d a reasona ble dou b t, W hite’s p osts w ere pr o te ct ed spe ec h un derthe Fi r stAm en dm en t. The d ist ric t c ou rtg r a n te d W h ite ’s R u le 2 9 m ot ion an d co n d iti onal l y deni ed h is requestf ora new tr i al

. Both the go ver n m en t a n d W h ite ap p ea l.

II. A N A L Y S IS Subse cti o n ( a ) o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 7 3 s t a t e s , i n r e l e v a ntp a rt, th at : W hoeve r, w i th i ntent that anothe r person enga ge i n cond uct co nsti tuti ng a fel ony that has a s a n el em ent the use, at tem pted use, o r thre ate ned use o fphy si ca lf o r ce a g ains t pr op erty o ra g ains t th eN os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 13 per so n of an oth eri n v i o l at i o n o fthe l aws o fthe U n ite d Sta te s, an d u n d e r circ u m st an c es st ro n gly cor robor ati ve ofthat i ntent, so l i ci ts, co m m ands, i nd uc e s , o ro the r wi s e e nd e a v o r s t o p e r s ua de such other perso n to enga ge i n su c h conduct, sh all b e im p ris on ed

. . . . The und er l yi ng fel ony W hi te al l ege d l y s ol i ci ted was harm to J urorA , wh i ch i s pro hibi ted b y 18 U.S
. C. § 1 503 ( “Whoe ve r. . . b y thr ea ts o rf o r ce . . . e nde av o r s to i nfl uence, i nti m i date, o r i m pede any g ra nd orpeti t j uror. . . o r i nj ur es a ny s uchg r an d o rpe ti t j ur o r. . . on ac co unto fa ny ve r di cto ri nd ictm enta ss en te d t o b y hi m , o ro n a cc o unt ofhi s be i ng o r havi ng be en such ju ro r . . . shal lbe puni shed

. . . . ”)
. S o t o c o nv i ctW hi te o fs o l i ci ta ti o n, the gov er nm ent had t o prove bey ond a r ea sonabl e doubt: ( 1) with “ str ongl y c or robor ati ve” cir cum sta nces that W hi te i nt en ded f o ra no th erpe r so n t o ha r m J ur o rA; a nd (2) th at W hite so li cited , com m an d ed , i nd uc ed , or oth erw i se tr i ed to per suade the othe r perso n to car ryo ut that c rim e. 18 U .S.C . § 37 3(a ); see also Ha le, 448 F. 3d at 982 (“[T ]h e g ov e r n m en t h ad to es ta b lish (1) w ith ‘st ro n gly cor robor ati ve ci rcum sta nces’ that H al e intended fo r T o n y E v o l a t o a r r a n g e th e mu r d e ro fJ u d g e L e fk o w; a nd ( 2) that H al e sol i ci ted, com m anded , i nd uced, o r othe rwis e tried to p ersu ad e E vola to carry out th e crim e.”)
.
A. The D i st r i ctCo ur t ’ s J udgmento fAcq u it ta l M ustB e R eve r sed Beca use a Reasonable J uryCould Have Convict ed W hit e o fCr i m i nal Soli ci t at i on A j udg m ent ofa cqui tt almustb e g r an te d when“ th e ev i den ce i s i ns uffi ci en t to s us ta i n a c o nv i ct i o n. ” F ed. R.14 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 Cri m . P. 29 ( a)
. Our r evi ew i s de no vo . U ni t e d S t at e s v. P resbitero , 5 6 9 F
. 3 d 6 9 1 , 7 0 4 ( 7t h Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. O u rj o b , h o weve r, i s no t t o “r ew ei gh the ev i dence norse cond-guess the j ur y ’ s c r e dib i l i t y de t e r mi na t i o ns. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ta va rez , 6 2 6 F
. 3 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 )
. R a th e r, we vi ew the evid en c e in the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the g overnm en t and ask w he th er a n y ra ti onalj ury coul d have f o u n d th e e s s e n t i a l el e me n t s o fth e c h a r g e d c r i me b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t. P resbitero , 5 6 9 F
. 3 d a t7 0 4
. “ We w il l set a s id e a j ury’s gu il ty verd ict only i f ‘the record c on ta in s n o e v i d en c e, re ga rd les s o f h ow it is w eig h ed ,’ fro m wh i ch a j u ry co uld have r etur ned a co nvi cti on. ” Id. (q u ot i ng U nited Sta tes v. M o ses, 5 1 3 F
. 3 d 72 7, 7 3 3 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08) )
. But the defe nd ant “ bear s a heav y b urden on a pp eal, a s he m ust dem onst ra te that no r ati onaltr i er offac tc o ul d d e c i de b e y o nd a r e a s o nab l e do ub t ” that h e c o m m itt ed th e o ffen se ch ar ge d

. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. C erva nte, 958 F.2d 175 , 178 (7th C ir. 1992). W e be g i n o ura na l y si s w i tho uri ns truct i o ns t o the dist ri ct c ourto n re m and: “A fterthe pros ecuti on pre se n ts its ca se , th e c ou rtm ay d e c id e t h at a re as on ab le j uror coul d no t concl ud e that W hi te’ s i ntent w as f or harm to bef al lJ uror A , and not m er el y e l ectr oni c o r verbalhar ass m ent. ” White, 6 10 F
. 3d at9 62
. T he g o ve r nm en t bo r e no t o nl y the b ur deno fpr o vingW hi te ’ s i nt en t i o na ls o l i c i t a t i o n, b uti tals o h a d t o p r o v e b e y o nd a reason able d ou bt th e obj ective of that solici tati o n : harm orthe th re at o fhar m to J urorA , notm er e e l ectr oni c o r ve rb al h ar as sm en t. Id. ; cf
. U ni t e d St at e s v. R a hm an , 34 F. 3d 13 31 , 13 37 ( 7th Ci r . 19 94 ) ( r equi r i ng th e gover nm en t to show w i th “s tr ongl y c or robor ati ve” ci rcum sta nces that the de fen d an t “ i ntended fo r [ the s ol i ci tee ] to exto rtN os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 15 and rob [ th e vi ct i m ] o f$ 60 , 00 0, ” an d th atthe de fen dan t “so l i ci ted, co m m anded , i nd uced, o r othe rwis e t ri ed to persuade [ the s olic itee ] to car ryo ut the ext or t i on and rob bery

. ” (em p ha sis add ed ))
. A re as o nabl e j ur y c o ul d ha ve f o und that th e g o ve r nm en t m etth is b u rd en . W h et h er W h ite ’s p os t w as a c rim ina ls o l i ci ta ti o n de pen ded o n c o nt ex t, a nd the g o ve r nm ent pr ovi ded a m p le evi dence ofsuch co ntext fro m w hic h a ra ti onalj ury coul d have co ncl ud ed that the pos t w as an i nvi tat i on f or othe rs to harm J uror A , though f or tunatel y no o n e accepte d the invi tat i on. The post att ributed to J urorA char acte ri sti cs intended to m ake the t ar getl oathed by re aders o fW hi te’ s neo - N azi webs i te : a J ew, a ho m o se xua lwi tha b l ack l o ve r, a nd abov e a l lthe forem an o fthe j ury that had convi cted O ve rt h ro w .co m ’s h er o, M at th ew H ale

— an an ti-S em itic w hi te suprem aci st

— ofso l i ci ti ng the m urder ofa federa l j ud ge. A nd wh er eas W hi te prev iousl y r efra i ned fr om “rep ub li sh [i ng ] th e pe rson al inform ation” of others in vo lve d in t h e H ale tria l be c au se , as W h i t e ac kn ow ledged, “there [ w as] so gr eata potenti alf oract i on l i nked to su ch pos ting,” W hite ex p ressly pu bli sh ed J uror A ’s person ali nf o r m at i o n, i nc l udi ngJ ur o rA’ s pho to g r aph, hom e a dd re ss, and tel ephone num ber s. The po stha s a co nt ex t cr ea te d b y pr ev i o us po st s o n the w ebsi te that had sol i ci ted the m urder ofBara ck Obam a, Ric hard W ar m an ( a Canadia n civilr i ghts l aw yer and the ba ne o fhate gr oups) , El i e W i esel, and si x bl ack te en ag er s k no wn as the “ J en a 6. ” O th er po st s ha d c o ngr a t ul a t e d mur de r e r s o ru r g e d the mur de ro fe ne m i es16 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 d efin ed in t er m s t h at w ou ld em b ra c e Ju ro r A . A ll that w as m i ssing w as an expli ci t sol i ci tat i on to m u rd er J urorA
. But the descrip tio n s u m m ar i zed abo ve w o ul d ha v e mad e J ur o r A s e e m t o l o y a l r e a de r s o f Overthro w . com as being atl eas t a s worthy o fas sass i nati o n a s Ri ch ar d W ar m an, who ha d b ee n de sc r ibe d i n a p ost, p ub li sh ed on ly a few m ont hs before the Juror A po s t, a s “ Ri c ha r d, the s o met i mes J e wi s h, s o met i mes not, att or ney b ehi nd the abuses o fCanada’s H um an Ri ghts Tribunal, ” who “shoul d be drug out i nto th e s tr eet an d shot, afte r ap p rop riate tri al by a r evolut ionary tr ibunal o fCanada’s wh i te acti vi sts . It w on’ t be har d to d o, h e c an be fo u n d , eas ily, ath is h om e, at[ad d re ss ].” A nd J urorA co uld be f ound at ho m e j ust a s e asily bec au se W hite p osted J uror A ’s person al contac t in form at i o n a l o ngwi ththe de nunc i at i o n. The “abuse s” ofthe Canad i an H um an Ri ghts T ribunal ha d b ee n l eft uns pec i fi ed i n the de nunc i at i o n o fW ar m an, wher ea s J uror A w as i den ti fi ed as i ns trum en ta li n the c on vic tion ofthe hero H al e: I f“a l l[ J urorA ] was . . . was anothe r anonym ous v oi ce in a d irty J ew i sh m ob, sc r ea m i ngf o rb l o o d a nd f o rthe fu r th eri m po ve r i sh

m ent o fthe w hi te w or ker

. . . [ he/ she] would har dlybe ofnot e. But [ J uror A ] i s s om ethi ng m or e. [ H e/ She] was not onl y a j uroratthe nati onal l y publicize d tri alo f M attH al e, but the j ury f or em an, and the ar chi tecto fbo th H al e’ s co nvi cti on a nd hi s e xtre m e an d leng thy 4 0- yea r se nt en ce . ” I fW ar m ans ho ul d b e k i l l ed, the n a f or tio ri J ur o r A s ho ul d b e k i l l e d, o r a t l e a s t i nj ur e d. W hi te didn’thave to s ayha r m J ur o rA. Al lhe ha d t o do a nd did do t o i nvi te vi ol ence w as to sketch the char acte ri sti csN os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 17 that m ade J urorA a m orta l ene m y o fW hi te’ s neo - N azi m ove m ent and to pu bl i sh J urorA ’ s per sonalco ntact i nf o r m at i o n. The f act that W hi te m ade an e ff or t t o disc ou ra ge assas si nati on a tte m pts ag ai nst J urorA wh en l aw enf or cem en t m o ve d a g ains t hi s webs i te s ho ws a t a m i ni m um th at h e k n ew h e w as p lay in g w i t h fire. B u t a rea so n ab le j ur y c o ul d ha ve a l so i nt er pr et ed su ch ev ide nc e as i nt en t to s o l i c i tv i o l e nc e a g a i ns tJ ur o rA f o l l o we d b y a c ha nge of m ind w he n he rea li zed th at ifso m eon e h arm ed Ju ror A he co uld g et i n tr ou b le. There w as enough e vi dence ofW hi te’ s intent to sol i ci t the m urd ero f, o r othe r physi calvi ol ence aga i nst, J uror A , to j usti fy a r eas o n ab l e j u r y i n c o n v i c t i n gh i m. I t’ s t rue that the pos ts that est abl ish the co ntext that m akes th e soli citation to viole n c e un m istakable w ere n o tl i n k s t o th e p o s t s o n O v er th r o w. c o m ab o u tJ u r o rA. Tha t i s, th ey wer e no t wor ds o r phr as es i n bl ue i n the po s t s tha ti fc l i c k e d o n b y the r e a de rwo ul d a pp e ar o n t he re ade r ’ s co m put er s cr ee n. S o m e o ft he explicit sol i ci tat i ons to m urder had been publ i shed on Ov er thro w . com m onths, ev en ye ar s, ea rl i er, tho ugh othe rs were re cent . Th e J urorA post s had appear ed between S eptem ber11 and Octobe r 3, 20 08, the postings r eg ar di ngW i es ela nd the J en a 6 be tw ee n F eb r ua r y 3 a nd S e p t e mb e r2 0 , 2 0 0 7
. B u tth e Wa r man a n d O b a ma dea ththr ea ts wer e r ec en t

— Ma r c h 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 a n d S e pt e mb er 9, 20 08 res p ec tiv ely

— the l att erthr eath av ing be en p o s t e d t wo d a y s b e f o r e th e fi r s tth r e a ta g a i n s tJ u r o rA. Regar dle ss of w hen these othe r sti l l

- acces sib le posts w er e t echni cal ly c re ate d, a r eas onabl e j ury cannot be18 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 expected to i gnor e the audi ence, wh o m ay not have been as concerned about such chro nol ogi calspeci fi cs. Readers o fOver thro w . com were not casualW eb bro w se rs , b ut extr em i sts m ol ded i nto a co m m unity b y the inter net

— l oya land avi d read er s w ho, wh ethero r not they re m em b er ev er y s peci fi c so l i ci tat i on t o ass assina ti o n, kne w that Ov er th r o w. co m i den ti fi ed ha te ful en em ies w ho sh ou ld be ass assina ted

. A reason able j ury coul d i nfe r th at m em ber s o fthe Party were r egul ar re ad er s o f th e O ve rt h ro w w eb sit e, w h ich p ro m in en tly displ aye d l i nks t o t h e P ar ty’ s o w n w ebsi te, to i ts str eam i ng r adio , and to it s hotl i ne. One w i tness te sti fi ed th at h e le ar n ed of th e P ar ty th ro u gh O ve rt h ro w .co m . W hi te i de nt i fi e d o ne r e a de r i n a po s t o n the we b s i t e as a “ l oya l so l di e r ” a nd “ f a n o f thi s we b s i t e , ” a nd the r e i s si m i l ar l anguage in ot her posts
. Tw o m em ber s o fthe party who t e s t i fi e d ma d e c l e a rth e i rf a mi l i a r i ty wi th t he conte nts o fthe w ebsi te ove r a per i od ofye ar s. Though th ese m em bers sp ecifi cally d en ied interp reting W hite’s p ost as an i nv itation t o h a r m J uror A , a reasona ble j ury could have tho ught, bas ed on W hi te’ s r eachi ng o ut to them f orsupport f ol l owing the s earc h o fW hi te’ s ho m e, t h a t th ey w ere biased i n W hite’s favor and therefore sk ewe d the i rt es ti m o ny i n orde rt o pr o te cta fel l o w suprem aci st. The go ver nm ent a l so est abl i shed “st ro ngl y c or robor ati ve c i r cumst an ce s” o fW hi te’ s i nt en t to ur g e th e k i l l i ng of, or h ar m to , Jur or A . Ty p ica lly, th e g o v er n m en t w ill sat i sfy i ts burden of str ongl y cor robor ating th e d ef enda nt ’ s i nt e ntb y i nt r o du c i nge v i de nc e s ho wi ngthat th e de fe n d a n t : ( 1 ) o ffe r e d o rp r o mi s e d p a y me n to rs o me othe r benefi t t o the per son sol i ci ted; ( 2) thr eat ened toN os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 19 puni sho rha r m the s o l i ci tee forf ai l i ngt o c o m m i t th e o ffen se ; ( 3) r epe at edly s o l i ci te d the c o m m i ss i o n of the offense orexpre ssl y s tat ed hi s s er i ousness ; ( 4) knew or bel i eve d that the per son sol i ci ted had prev i ousl y c om m i tted a si m i l aro ffense; o r ( 5) acqui re d w eapons, t oo l s o r i nfo rm ati on, or m ade other prepar ati ons, sui ted f oruse b y t h e s olic ite e. U ni t e d S t a tes v. G a briel , 81 0 F
. 2d 627, 6 3 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ( c i t i ng S. Rep. N o. 30 7, 97 th Cong. , 1s t S es s. 1 83 ( 19 82 ) )
. The se f ac to r s ar e no t ex cl us i ve o rc o nc lu siv e in d ica to rs of in te n t, i d. , but the y a re r epre senta
t i v e e xa mpl e s o fthe ty pe s o fc i r c ums t a nt i a le vi dence that a r ati onalj ury coul d rely o n to co rr ob or ate the defen d an t’s int en t. SeeHale, 44 8 F
. 3d at 983 ( “The exi ste nce ofst ro ngl y c or robor ating ci rcum sta nces is a qu est i on o f fact for th e j ury.” (ci tation om itted ))
. Su c hcirc u m st an tia l ev id en c e, m u c h o fw h ich is alr ea d y re c ou n te d ab ov e, e x i s t s h er e. In p os ts on h is w ebsi te dir ecte d a t hi s neo- N azi re aders , W hi te w rote that “eve ry one ass oci ate d w i th t h e M attH al e t ri alhas d es er ve d as sa ss in at ion for a lon g tim e;” h e e x p re ss ly so l i ci te d viol ence a g ains t Oba m a, W ar m an, W i es el, a nd the J ena 6 ; he prai sed W i ese l ’ s a ssa i l ant a nd appreci ate d th at W h i t e ’ s ex p re ss ed vie w s “ m ay h av e p lay ed a ro le i n m oti vating” the as sai l ant; he went to the tr oubl e o f obt ai ni ng and publi shi ng J urorA ’ s co ntact i nfo rm ati on afterexpre ssl y r eco gni zi ng the “g re at [ ] pote nti alf or action ” link ed to the p osting o f p erson al contac t inform at ion of ot h er “s c u m b ag s” inv olv ed in t h e H ale tria l; an d a fte rl ea rni ngo fthe F BI ’ s i nv es ti g at i o n h e demonstrate d a w aren ess th at his p osts m ight ind uc e read ers t o c o mmi ta v i o l e n ta c ta g a i n s tJ u r o rA.20 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 T h ou gh th e g ov er n m en t d id n otp re se n t a sp e c ific “solici tee,” i t w as u nn eces sary to d o so gi ven th e very nature o fthe sol i ci tat i on

— an el ectr onic bro adcast w h ich , a rea so n ab le jur y c ou ld c on c lu d e, w as sp ec ifica lly d esigned to reach as m an y w hite s u p r em acist read ers a s p o s s ib l e s o that som e onec o u l d k i l lo rh a r m J u r o rA. 18 U
. S. C. § 373 re quir es proo f of i ntent “that an ot her p erson ” com m it the fel ony , an d W h ite’s d esire for any re ader to re spond to hi s ca l lsa ti sfi es thi s r equi re m ent. SeeW hite, 61 0 F
. 3d at 960 (“a speci fi c per son- to- perso n r e qu e s ti s n o tr e qu i r e d” ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rahm an , 189 F.3d 88, 117-18 (2d Cir. 1999)). W hi t e r i g ht ful l y e mpha s i z e s tha tthe F i r s tAmen dm en t p ro te ct s ev ens pee chtha t i s l o aths o m e. But cr i mi n a ls o l i c i t a t i o n s a r e s i mply n o tp r o t e c t e d b y the Fi rs t Am endm ent. Se ei d. ; C ha pli nsky v . New Ha m psh ire, 315 U
. S. 568, 57 2 ( 1942 ) ( “[ T]hos e [ w or ds] w hi ch by thei r ver y utt er ance infl i ct inj ury orte nd to inc i te an i m m edi ate b re ach o fthe peace” ar e no t pr ote cted by th e Fir st A m en d m en t); s e e a l s o Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 553 U
. S. 28 5, 29 7 ( 200 8) (“O ffer s t o engag e in i l l ega l t r a ns a c t i o ns a r e c a t e g o r i c a l l y ex c l ud e d f r o m F i r s tAmen dm en t prot ection
. ” (ci tations om itted ))
. A reason able j ury coul d have found that W hi te’ s posts co nsti tuted “a pro p os al t o e n ga ge in il l e g al a c tiv ity ” a n d n otm er ely “the abst ra ct a dvocacyo fi l l ega l i ty
. ” S e ei d. at29 8- 99. A ccor dingly , the Fi rs t Am endm ent pr ovi des no shel ter for W hite’s crim inal beha vior. Forth e abov e r eas ons, W hi te’ s a cquit talm ust be r ev e r s e d.N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 21 B. W hit e I s Not Enti t l ed t o a N ew Tr i al “I f th e co ur t en te r s a j udg m en t o f ac qui tt al after a g u ilty ve rd ict, th e c ou rtm u st als o c on d itio n ally deter m i ne wh etherany m oti on fo r a new tr i alsho uld be gr anted i fthe j ud gm ent o facqui tta li s late r vacated or r ev er se d. ” F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 29( d) ( 1)
. Upon ac qui tt i ng W h ite , th e d ist ric t c o u r t, p u rs u an t t o th is ru le, co n d iti onal l y deni ed W hi te’s m oti on f ora new tr i al, wh i ch W h ite n ow ch alle n ge s a s a n ab u se of d i sc re tio n . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l s on , 237 F.3d 8 2 7, 8 3 1-32 (7th C ir. 2001 )
. N one ofW hi te’ s a rgum ents have m er i t.

1. A n on ym ou s Ju ry W h ite firstarg u es t h a t t h e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in empanel l i nga n a no ny m o us j ur y . “ A co ur t wei g hi ngthe ne ed f o ra n a no ny m o us j ur y must
. . . b al an ce the de fen dant’s i nter esti n pres erving the pre sum pti on o fi nnoce nc e an d i n c o nduc tinga us efulv o i rdi r e ag ains t th e j urors’ interesti n th eir ow n sec urity an d the p ub li c’s i nter esti n havi ng a ju ry as ses s the defendant’s gui l t o r i nn ocence i m parti al l y. ” U nited Sta tes v. M a nso o ri, 30 4 F.3 d 63 5, 65 0 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ) (cit at ion s o m itt ed ). Fact or s be ar i ng o n the p ro p rie ty ofan a nonym o us ju r y i nc l ude the de fen dan t’ s i nv o l ve m en t i n o r g an i zed cri m e; hi s par ti ci pat i o n in a g r o up wi th the c apa ci tyt o ha r m j ur o r s; whethe rhe pr ev i o us l y ha s at te m pte d t o int er fer e wi ththe j udi ci alpr o cess; the s ev er i tyo fthe puni sh m en t th at th e defen dan t woul d f ac e i fc o nv i ct ed; a nd22 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209

w hetherpubli ci ty re gardingthe case pre sents the pr ospectthat the j uror s’ nam es coul d becom e publ i c and expose t hem to i nti m i dati on orhar ass m ent. Id. at 650- 51. “W e r evi ew the deci si on t o use an ano nym o us j ur y o nl y f o ra n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, rem aining parti c u lar l y defer enti alto the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s ubstanti al disc re ti on i n th is a re a. ” U nited Sta tes v. M o ral es , 65 5 F
. 3d 60 8, 6 21 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1) ( ci ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. E ven if th e dist ri ct c ourter rs in em panel l i ng an anonym ous j ury, a new tr i ali s unw ar ra nted w here su c h er ro r w as h ar m les s, su c h a s w h en vo ir d ire is “e x tr em ely th or ou gh ,” M a nso o ri, 3 0 4 F .3d at65 2, or w h en th e jur or s a re to ld th at th eir na m es are w ithh eld “to p reven t out -of

c ou rtco n ta c t, no t o u t o f co n c er n for jur or sa fet y,” M o ral es , 65 5 F
. 3d at 623, i n c om b i nati on with other f acto rs m i ti gat i ng prej ud i ce. W hi te al m ostexcl usi vel y e m phasi zes the al l ege d lac k of “ so m e e vid en c e in d ica tin g t h at int im id at ion is l i kel y. ” M a nso o ri, 30 4 F
. 3d at 651. But su c h evi dence co ul d no t be c l ea r erhe r e. I t was c er tainly c l ea rb y the ti m e the di str i ct c ourtgr anted the go ver nm en t’s m oti on to em panel an a nonym ous j ury t h at W hi te had posted the p e r s o na lc o nt a c ti nfo r mati on

— of a j uror

— al so i n a case i nvol vi ng a w hi te suprem aci st, w h i ch r esul ted i n hara ssm ent a nd i nti m i dati on. W hi te al so does not c h all e n ge th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s fin d in g t h at h is t ar ge t a u d ien c e had previ ousl y c om m i tte d acts ofvi ol ence aga i nst th eir p er c eiv e d e n em ies , pa rt icu lar ly th os e in vo lve d in th e j u s t i c e s y s t e m, o rt h e f a c tth a tth e r e h a d b e e n s o meN os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 23 pu bl i ci ty ofthe case , exace rba ti n g th e r i sk that the j uror s’ ide nt i ti es woul d b ec o m e publ i c. The di st r i ctc o urt ’s consi derat i on of these f acto rs i n deci ding to em panel an an o ny m o us j ur y was the r efo r e no t anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n. Tho ug h un ne ce ss ary t o a ddr es s, we al so no te the abse nce of h ar m . W hi te ar gues that the j ury’ s a nonym i ty pr ed i spo se d i t to b el i ev e th atW hi te was da ng er o us an d ther efo r e a cr i m i na l, a nd e m pha si ze s J ur o r8 ’ s ex pr es si o n o fc o nc ern abo utput tinghi s na m e o n the j uror sign-in sh eet. Bu t the district c o u r t assu red J uror 8 that the si gn- i n sheet w as not pu bl i c and that i t c ou ld be sea l ed, and i t confi rm ed that J uror 8 did not d isc uss hi s co nc ern wi tha ny o th erj ur o r. M o sti m po r ta nt l y, the c ou rtas ke d h im w h et h er h e c ou ld s t i l l r en d er a fair ve r di ct, a nd he r es po nde d “ Ye s. ” W e a gr ee wi ththe d istr ic t c o urtthat “som e con cern s on th e pa rt of j urors we r e l i k e l y u n a v o i d ab l e ” g i v e n th e c o n t e x t, b u tt he d ist ric t c ou rtp r o p er ly en su re d th at Ju ro r 8’s sp ec ific concerns w ou l d not g i ve ri se to i m properbi as aga i nst W hi te b y c o nfi r m i ngtha t he c ou ld be i m par ti al

. The di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o tol d th e j ur o r s tha tthe y we r e k e pt anonym ous in or der t o ensure a f ai r an d im p ar ti altr i al an d t o p re ve n t c on ta c t w ith th e p ar tie s a n d law ye rs ; i t did notm enti on s ecuri ty as a reas on. A nd W hi te does not chal len ge the ri goro fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s v oi r dir e, or an y ot h er m e as u re ta ke n by th e c ou rtto en su re h im a f ai r tr i al

. A ccor dingl y, ev en i fthe dist ri ct c ou rter re d i n e mp a n e l l i n ga n a n o n y mo u s j u r y, s u c h e r r o r wa s h a r ml ess .24 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 2. Ad m i ssi on ofRu l e 4 04( b) Ev i den ce N ext, W hi te chal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s Ru l e 4 04(b) adm i ssi on o fhi s pos ts concerni ng peopl e o therthan J urorA
. Rule 40 4( b) proh ibit s the adm i ssi on o fev i dence of“pri orbad ac ts to show that the defen d an t’s chara cter i s co nsi ste nt with a pro pensity to co m m i t the char ged cri m e; however, i t a l l ows the c ourtto adm i t e vi dence of a defen dan t’ s pr i o r[ ac ts ] f o ro th erpe r m i ss ibl e, no np ro p en sit y pu rp os es ,” su c h as in t e n t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Perki ns , 54 8 F
. 3d 510, 51 3- 14 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. In or d erto b e a d m iss ible , su c h ev id en c e m u st : (1) b e d ire c te d to w ar d es t a b lish in g a m at te r in i s s ue o the rtha n the de fe nd a nt ’ s p r o pe ns i t y to c o mmi tth e c r i me c h a r g e d ; ( 2 ) s h o w th a tt he ot h er ac t is sim i l a r e n ou gh an d clo se en ou gh in ti m e t o be r el evantto the m att eri n is su e; ( 3) be su ffi ci en t to s uppo r t a j ur y f i ndi ngtha t th e defen dant com m itted the s i m i l aract; and ( 4) have proba ti ve val ue thati s no t s ubstanti all y o utw ei ghed by the dange r ofunfa i r prej ud i ce. Id. Thi s co urt re vi ew s a d i str i ct court ’ s Rul e 4 04(b) adm i ssio n for a b u se of d isc re tio n . Id. at51 3. Ta k i ngthe l a s tp r o ngfi r s t, we n o t e tha tthe p r o bati ve val ue o fthes e pos ts w as parti cul ar l y str ong, i n that they he l ped th e g o ve r nm en t to s at i sfy i ts bur deno fpr o ducing evi dence of ci rcum sta nces “st ro ngl y c or robor ati ve” of W h ite ’s in te n t ( a n d for th at rea so n, th e firs t p ro n g is al so sat i sfi ed). Though ther e was an undeni abl e danger that the j ury w oul d be infl am ed aga i nst hi m wh en exposed to hi s “ noxi ous v i ew s, ” Ha le, 4 48 F. 3d at 986,N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 25 the j ury had al re ady be en exp os ed to W hi te’ s white suprem aci st vi ew s fro m othe r evi dence that w as unq uestio n ab ly a d m i s s i b le, an d W h ite n ev er so u gh t a sp ec ific l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s co ncl usi on th ats uch dang erdi d no t “s ubs ta nt i al l y o ut wei g h” the str ong proba tive v alue o fthes e pos ts w as ther ef or e no t an abuse o fdi scret ion . W hi l e the adm i ssi on o fpri or posts m i gh t b e i m properin another el ectr oni c cr i m i nal sol i ci tat i on case , w e si m ply cannot say that the dis tr i ct co ur t, i n i ts c o ns i der at i o n o fthe uni que f ac ts an d e vi den

tia ry co n te x t, e r r e d in t h is on e. See id
. at 985 ( “W e g i ve speci aldefer ence to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a sse ssm ent o f the b al ance b etwe en pro bati ve val ue and prej ud i ce because t h at cour t i s in the bestposi ti on t o m ake su ch assess m en ts.”). A s fo rthe r e mainingf a c t o r s , tho ugh s e v e r a lo fthes e p osts w ere created a year or m ore before the Juror A post, theywere non et hel ess “cl ose eno ugh i n ti m e t o be re lev an t” in t h at th ey w er e c on te m p or a n e ou sly av aila b le at th e t i me o f th e p o s t ab o u t J u r o r A. An d th er e i s no di spute tha tthe s e p o s t s we r e ma de b y Whi t e . Ac c o r di ngl y, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s Rul e 4 04(b) adm i ssi on o f W hite’s p osts con ce rning peo p le other tha n Juror A was no t anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n.

3 . W hi t e ’ s Pr o po s e d J uryI ns t ruc t i o ns C o nc e rni ng t he F i r s tAme ndme nt W hi te fi nal l y a rgues that a new tri alis w ar ra nted because the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to i ncl ud e fo ur o fhi s pro posed j ury in st ructi ons concerni ng the Fi rs t Am endm ent.26 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 Bri efl y s um m ar i zed, thes e in c l ud e: an instr ucti on that speech i s pro tect ed w hen i t inci tes i m m i nent l aw l ess acti on, an instr ucti on that s peech m ay not be b anned si m p ly b ecause i t i s unpopular, an instr ucti on that sp ee ch scr uti ni zi ng peopl e invol ved i n the pros ecuti on ofcr i m es ( e. g. , j uror s) i s pro tect ed, and an instr ucti on that speech a pp ro vi ng o fp as t v i ol ence by othe rs i s pro t e c t e d. Pl ai n er ro r re vi ew ap pli es w hen counse lf ai l s t o “obj ec t, o n the r ec o r d, t o the j ud g e’ s r efus alt o t en derthe defen dan t’ s i ns truct i o ns [ an d] c le ar l y s ta te the r ea so ns f orhi s o r her obj ecti ons. ” U ni ted State s v. D ougl as , 81 8 F .2 d 13 17, 132 0 (7 th C ir. 19 87 ); seeFed

. R. Crim
. P. 30(d ). The g o ve r nm en t po i nt s o uttha t afte rthe c o ur t ex p ressly m ad e its ins tru ctions ruli ng and asked W h ite’s counsel, “Do y ou have any obj ecti ons, bythe w ay, . . . o r ar e y ou other w i se sat i sfi ed w i th the i nstr ucti ons?” , co unsel resp ond ed , “Jud ge, I ’m p rett y su re

— Ihave n’tl oo ked at the o thero nes, but I ’m sa ti sfi ed w i th the el em ents i ns truct i o n tha t Ithi nki s th e m ain o ne . ” The g o ve r nm ent there f or e a rgues th at no o bj ecti on was m ade. W hi te counter s that hi s pro posed Fi rs t A m en dm ent instr ucti ons w er e v i gor ousl y deba ted, albei t be f or e the di str i ct cour t r ule d on the i nstr ucti ons. W e hav e s ai d that, so l ong as defe nse cou n se l “a l er t[ s] the cour ta nd the o pp o s i ngp a r t y t o the s pe c i fi c g r o un ds f o rthe o bj ec ti o n in a t i m ely f as hi o n, ” the n “ [ t] he r e i s no uti l i ty i n re quir i ng defense counselto o bj ec t agai n after the c ourthas m ade i ts fi nalr u ling. ” U nited Sta tes v. Jam es , 464 F. 3d 699, 70 7 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. But i n the case o fN os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 27

S eeFe d. R. Cr i m . P. 30 (b) ( “The c our tm us ti nf or m the 3 par t i es b efore c l os i ng a rg um en t s ho w iti nt en ds t o r ul e on th e r eq u es te d in str u ct io n s.” ). th e c o u r t ’ s r e fu s a lt o g i v e a p r o p o s e d i ns t r u c t i o n, s o me of ou r case s hav e s ugges ted thato bj ecti ons m ust be m ade a ftera rul i ng i s m ade, or at l eas t a fterthe dist ri ct cour t ind i cate s ho w i t intends to r ule

. See U nited Sta tes 3 v. Irorere, 22 8 F
. 3d 816, 82 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( obj ecti on n o tp r e s e r v e d wh e r e d e fe n d a n t“ d i d n o to bj e c to n t he r ec o r d a t th e ti m e th e dis tr i ctc o ur t r efus ed to g i ve the d efe n d an t’s p ro p os ed ins tr u c tio n ”); Un i t e d S t a t e s v. G r een , 77 9 F
. 2d 1313 , 13 20 n. 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) ( obj ecti on not prese rv ed w here “the defendant or i gi nal l y a rgued o n b eh a l f o f h i s p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n, b u t o ffe r e d no fur th erc o m m en t, much l es s ano bj ec ti o n” a fte rcou rt ad o p t ed oth er ins tr u c tio n s). A n d co u n se l ca n sim p ly obj ect by stating th at he or s h e obj ects and i nc orp or at es arg u m en ts p re vio u sly m ad e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Ho lling er, 5 53 F
. 2d 53 5, 5 43 ( 7th Ci r . 1 97 7) ( “Whi l e th e proce ss ofst ating f orthe re cor d that s uch pre- cha rg e obj ecti ons ar e inc or pora ted byr efer ence i s a so m ew hat pro f or m a e xerci se, we are neve rthel ess o f the opi ni on that the bett er pract i ce w oul d b e f or counsel to see that the r eco rd affi rm ati vel y s how s that co unselhas re new ed hi s s peci fi c o bj ecti ons by the inc or p orati on m et h od .”); se e also U nit ed St ates v. Requarth , 84 7 F
. 2d 1249, 12 54 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) ( “Speci fi c o bj ecti ons to i nstr ucti o ns th at ar e di st i nc tly made ata n ins truct i o ns c o nfer en c e m ay be inc or p or at ed by r e f e r en c e.” ). I t w ou ld have been w i se f orW hi te’ s cou n se l to have atl eas t28 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 obj ecte d and inco rpor ate d h is pr evi ous a rgum ents by re fer ence w hen the dist ri ct cour t gave hi m an exp re ss o ppo r tu ni tyt o do s o a fte ri t ha d m ade i ts r ul i ngo n the in st ru c tio n s. Se ege ne r al l y Holl i nger, 5 53 F. 2d at 543 ( di st r i ctc o ur t ha s d i sc r et i o n t o de te r m i ne whenthe “distinct sta tem ent o fthe m att erto wh i ch co unselo bj ects an d th e g r o unds o f th e o bj ec ti o ns ar e st at ed” p urs ua nt to Ru le 30(d)). I n any eve nt, w e n eed notdeci de w hetherpl ai n er ro r review ap p li es, bec au se w e find t h a t the district cou rt di d no t i m pr op erl y e xc l ude hi s pr o po se d i ns truct i o ns ev eno n deno vo re v i ew . See Ja m es , 46 4 F
. 3d at 707 ( re vi ew ofdi str i ct c ourt ’ s r efusalto g ive p ro posed j ury i nstr ucti ons i s deno vo ). “To b e ent itl ed to a particu lar th eory o fde fen se i ns truct i o n, the de fen dan t m us t sh o w the f ol l owing: (1) the i nstr ucti on i s a co rr ect sta tem ent o f th e l aw, ( 2) the e vi den ce i n the c as e su ppo r ts the theory o fde fense, (3) tha t th eo r y i s no t al r ea dy par t o fthe charg e, an d (4 ) a f ai l ure to provi de the i nstr ucti on w oul d deny a f ai r tr i al

. ” Id. Ex cl ud ing W hi te’ s pro posed j ury i nstr ucti ons w as not i m proper . The di str i ct c ourtesse n ti al l y incor pora ted W hi t e ’ s p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n ab o u t s p ee ch b ei ng pr o te ct ed unl es s i t i nc i te s i m m inen t l awl es s ac ti o n, a nd adopt in g a ny addit i onalem phasi s o n that poi nt as W h ite p ro p os ed co u ld h av e b e e n m isle ad in g b ec au se it w oul d hav e sugge ste d that the sol i ci tat i on o fa non- i m m ed iat e c rim e w a s p ro te c te d , w h en it is n ot
. SeeW hite, 61 0 F .3d at96 0 (“ so licit at ion s[] re m ain ca te go ric ally o ut si de [ th e F i r stAm en dm en t’ s] pr o te ct i o n” )
. And theN os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 29 dist ri ct c ourtes senti al l y incor pora te d W hi te’ s pro posed instru ct i o n abo utunpo pul ars pee chwheni t to l d the j ury that the “ Fi rs t Am endm ent pr ote cts
. . . o ffensi ve cr i ti ci sm o fo th er s, ” an d tha t spe ec h tha t i s no th i ng m o r e th ana n “ i ndi gn an t ore xt r eme metho d o fs ta ting p olit ica l op p os itio n to th e jur o r in t h e M at th ew H ale case ” was notcr i m i nal

. Thi s l att eri nstr ucti on a l so capture d W hi te’ s pro posed in str ucti on about the F i rs t A m en d m en t p ro te c tin g s p ee c h th at sc ru t in ize s p eo p le i nv o l v e d in the p r o s e c ut i o n o fc r i mes , s uc h a s j ur o rs . And W hi te was no t cl ea r l y de ni ed a f air tri alb y the e xcl usi on o fh is propos ed i nstr ucti on co ncer ni ng spee ch ap p ro vin g of p as t v iole n c e b y ot h er s. N o re a so n ab le j urorwould i nter pret the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s instr ucti on ab o ut whats o l i ci ta ti o n mea ns

— “an e nd e a vor to persuade a notherto enga ge i n conduct co nsti tuti ng a vi ol ent fel ony”

— to m ean that m er e approvalof p ast vi ole nce aut om ati cal l y t ra nsl ate s into sol i ci tat i on o f future cri m i nalco nd uct. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s j ury i nstr ucti ons conci sel y desc ribed t h e p ro te c tio n s o f th e F irs t A m en d m en t a n d co rre c tly i nfo r med the j ur y tha tc r i mina ls o l i c i t a t i o ns f a l lo ut s i de its p ro te c tio n . SeeTrident Inv. M gm t. , Inc. v. Am oco O il Co. , 1 94 F
. 3d 772, 78 0 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9) ( “[ w]e wi l lno t fi nd re ve rs ibl e e rr ori n j ury i nstr ucti ons i f, ta ken a s a whol e, they fai r l y a nd a cc ur at ely i nf o r m the j ur y abo ut th e law ”). The i ncl usi on of W hi te’ s propos ed inst ructi o ns woul d ha ve beenundu l y c um ul at i ve a nd po te nti al l y c on fu si ng, and W hi te poi nts t o no ind i cati on that the j ury f ai l ed to app re c iat e the pro tect i ons ofthe Fi rs t A m en d m en t, to th e e x te n t t h e y w er e re lev an t in th is30 N os. 11

- 2150 & 11

- 2209 cri m i nalso l i ci tat i on ca se. S e e D eP a epe v . Gen . M o to rs Corp
. , 33 F. 3d 737, 7 4 3 ( 7 t h Cir. 1994) (“ ‘Ina d eq ua te j ury i nstr ucti ons ar e ca use forr eve rsalo nl y i fi t a pp ear s that the j ury’ s co m prehensi on o fthe i ssu es w as so m i sgui ded that one of the parti es w as prej ud i ced. ’ ” ( ci tat i on o m i tted ))
. T he refore, the d istrict cou rt’s exclu sion of W hite’s p rop osed j ury inst ruc tions w as no t erroneou s. W hite’s ar gum ent that the cum ula ti ve i m pact o fal lthe abov e al l ege d err or s warr ants a new tr i ali s a l so w i thout m er i t.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns st ated a b ov e, the j ud gm ent o facqui tta l enter ed by the di str i ct c ourti s R EVER S ED , the convi cti on i s R EI NST ATED , a n d the ca se i s R EMAND ED f o rs en tencing. W hi te’ s cr oss - appeal i s D IS MIS S ED .

10- 26- 12