Court Opinion

ID: 9486675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:55:59.659326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:51.973760
License: Public Domain

LAY, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
In concurring in this opinion, I in no way disclaim or retract the position expressed in United States v. Lee, 6 F.3d 1297, 1304-07 (8th Cir.1993) (Lay, J., concurring and dissenting), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1576, 128 L.Ed.2d 219 (1994), - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1550, 128 L.Ed.2d 199 (1994). In the present ease, there is significantly more evidence supporting the convictions of the defendants, particularly the numerous statements about what the defendants intended to accomplish by burning the crosses. The extent of the evidence supporting the conviction in Lee was essentially the defendant’s statement that by burning the cross, “[m]aybe that would get rid of some of the bad blacks that were there, they would take the message seriously and leave.” Id. at 1298. In the present ease, by contrast, there were statements made that the defendants intended to scare the Joneses in particular, that their purpose was to threaten and intimidate, and that they did not like African Americans and wanted them out of the neighborhood.
Of critical distinction is the nature of the threat involved in this case. It is necessary to distinguish between a true threat, which is not protected, and constitutionally protected speech. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 1401, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969) (per curiam) (in the context of an alleged threat to the President’s life in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871); see also United States v. Gilbert, 884 F.2d 454, 456-57 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1082, 110 S.Ct. 1140, 107 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1990). Whether the defendants’ conduct, in burning a cross in the Joneses’ yard and across the street from the Joneses’ home, constitutes a true threat is a question for the jury. See Gilbert, 884 F.2d at 458. In this situation, a jury could find that the defendants specifically directed a threat towards the Joneses. In Lee, on the other hand, “the cross burning was not a threat. The cross was not focused on one particular individual, but rather was placed 386 feet away from a three-building apartment complex with at least 15 black families.” Lee, 6 F.3d at 1307.
In light of these factual distinctions, I agree that the evidence supports the convictions of the defendants in this case.