Opinion ID: 795515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Davila's actions communicated a sufficiently credible threat

Text: 39 Davila's next argument is that even if an anthrax hoax could theoretically fall within the scope of sections 2332a and 876(c), his conduct cannot have qualified as a true threat within the meaning of those statutes because he did not communicate a credible warning of harm. Because the letter was clearly marked as having come from a prison inmate, he argues, no reasonable recipient could have taken it seriously. 40 In general, [w]hether a given writing constitutes a threat is an issue of fact for the trial jury. Malik, 16 F.3d at 49. The test is an objective one—namely, whether an ordinary, reasonable recipient who is familiar with the context of the letter would interpret it as a threat of injury. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In making this determination, proof of the effect of the alleged threat upon the addressee is highly relevant. Id. 41 With these principles in mind, the evidence at trial was more than sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that Davila's conduct constituted a threat. The white powder was accompanied by apparent references to anthrax and Osama Bin Laden, and it occurred not long after the well-publicized anthrax attacks of 2001. In this context, a reasonable recipient could have concluded that the mailing threatened injury. The actual effect on the recipients strongly supports this conclusion. After the letter was discovered, State's Attorney's Office personnel evacuated the area, initiated a full-scale emergency response, and kept the area sealed off until the powder could be tested. The employees who were present when the letter arrived were genuinely frightened and took numerous precautions, such as bagging and washing their clothes, limiting contact with others to avoid infecting them, and taking antibiotics. 42 Davila contends that a reasonable recipient could not have taken his letter seriously because it was marked as having been sent by a prison inmate. While this is one factor to consider in determining whether a threat is credible, it does not deserve the weight Davila urges us to assign it. A recipient of a letter such as Davila's could reasonably believe that the sender had obtained access to anthrax or some other dangerous substance, or that he could cause an associate to send it. Cf., e.g., United States v. Slaughter, 116 F.Supp.2d 688, 690 (W.D.Va.2000) (quoting a letter from an inmate stating, guess what I got over the fence? I got enough [a]nthrax to kill you with, [a]nd it can be done by mail.). 43