Opinion ID: 691051
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: 11 Daughenbaugh challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that the letters were not threats but, rather, were political speech protected by the first amendment. He seeks a de novo review of this evidentiary issue because of its constitutional implications. In United States v. Turner we noted that whether or not the language contained in [the defendant's] letters constitutes a 'threat' is an issue of fact for the jury. 1 Guided by instructions, such as given herein, removing protected speech from the definition of threat, 2 the jury is to determine the nature of the subject communication. 3 Appellate review is limited to ascertaining whether a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense, including the threat, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 12 Our review of the record leads inexorably to the conclusion that the evidence amply supports the verdict. The plain language of the letters was sufficient to place a reasonable recipient in apprehension. The mode of communication--private letter--is the typical means for delivery of threats. In advancing his appellate challenge Daughenbaugh cites United States v. Watts. 4 We find Watts inapposite for it involved a public rally, not a private letter. 5 The political rhetoric accompanying the threats furnishes no constitutional shield. Rather, the violent tone of the rhetoric amplifies the threats. The reaction of the recipients is probative--the three judges who testified took extra security measures. 6 A rational jury was entitled to find that the essential elements of the offenses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 13 Daughenbaugh next contests the refusal to suppress incriminating statements made to Scott Hendricks, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When agent Hendricks inquired about the letters Daughenbaugh invoked his Miranda 7 rights and demanded counsel. One year later Hendricks met Daughenbaugh for routine questioning about a written statement he had given supporting another inmate's charge of a civil rights violation by a guard. 8 Hendricks also sought a handwriting exemplar. Hendricks testified that Daughenbaugh refused, exclaiming that if he were forced to furnish a sample of his handwriting he would merely disguise it, as he often does and has other people write things for him. This statement was admitted into evidence over objection to corroborate the testimony of an inmate who attested to writing certain of the subject letters at Daughenbaugh's direction. 14 Daughenbaugh contends that the admission of the statement violated Miranda and its progeny. He maintains that Arizona v. Roberson 9 proscribed questioning about the civil rights charge and Edwards v. Arizona 10 prohibited Hendricks' request for the handwriting exemplar. We are not persuaded. Roberson, which forbids subsequent custodial interrogations about unrelated criminal offenses after the invocation of the fifth amendment right to counsel, is inapplicable because there was no threat of involuntary self-incrimination. The investigation of the civil rights charge was noncriminal in nature and the target was not Daughenbaugh but the guard. Edwards, which precludes the reinitiation of custodial interrogation after a request for counsel, applies only to conduct that the authorities should know [is] reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. 11 A handwriting sample is nontestimonial evidence beyond the scope of the right against self-incrimination. 12 The bare request for a sample therefore does not implicate Edwards. 15 Finally, Daughenbaugh challenges the district court's departure from the Sentencing Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months to a sentence of 240 months. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that Daughenbaugh's criminal history category of VI did not adequately reflect the seriousness of his past conduct. Daughenbaugh's criminal history score was 24, nearly twice the 13 points required for category VI. Even that score did not fully take into account Daughenbaugh's conduct in prison, including the repeated discovery of weapons in his possession and evidence of escape plans that included the taking of hostages or the killing of guards. The court concluded: 16 I can't find anything in the record that establishes any likelihood that you're not going to continue to commit criminal offenses. You continue in prison and you continue here [in the county jails where Daughenbaugh was held during trial] at least in possession of weapons that can be concluded that you're attempting to escape once more. In fact, your whole record shows that you seem to have a propensity to engage in criminal conduct at all times and perpetuate criminal acts. 17 In arriving at the sentence imposed, the district court scaled the criminal offense levels from 18 to 32, explaining, I have considered all of the other offense levels up to a leval 35.... I considered the information in the presentence investigation and for the reasons I've stated, [selected] the level of sentencing I believe is appropriate in your case.... 18 Daughenbaugh maintains that the district court did not comply with the proper methodology for departures under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.3, as articulated by our en banc decision in United States v. Lambert. 13 We do not agree. Lambert requires only that the district court consider each intermediate adjustment and state that it has done so, and explain why the guideline category is inappropriate and why the category chosen is appropriate. 14 Ordinarily such explanation will make clear, either implicitly or explicitly, why the intermediate adjustments are inadequate. 15 Such is the situation at bar. The district court complied with the Lambert teaching and struck a satisfactory balance between ritualistic formalism and arbitrariness. 19 Daughenbaugh also maintains that the departure was excessive. We are not persuaded. The departure was extensive but Daughenbaugh displayed unusually violent propensities. The sentence was below the statutory maximum and passes muster. 20 AFFIRMED.