Court Opinion

ID: 9475617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:32:46.571008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:49.239764
License: Public Domain

WILL, Senior District Judge,
dissenting.
David L. Hoffman was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) for sending a letter, reproduced below, to the President of the United States:
[[Image here]]
At trial, over the defendant’s objection, the government was permitted to introduce evidence of Hoffman’s prior religious affiliation and his political views. Hoffman’s mother testified that Hoffman had formerly been a member of the religious sect headed by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and that he was “concerned” about Moon’s imprisonment on charges of tax evasion. Based on this testimony plus evidence that Hoffman authored the letter, but without any evidence that he contemplated any action other than writing and sending the letter, a jury convicted him of the offense charged.
In this case we are called upon to strike the delicate balance between the right to express opposition or even vehement disagreement with governmental leaders and the necessity for protecting the President and maintaining political order. The majority opinion, in my view, fails to achieve this balance. To my mind, Hoffman’s mother’s testimony as to his religious and political opinions was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. Even with this evidence, however, *715the government failed to prove that Hoffman’s letter constituted a “true threat” against the life of the President. Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969). Because the majority opinion shows insufficient regard for Hoffman’s first amendment rights of religious liberty and freedom of expression, I dissent.
I.
The majority assumes, without explanation, that evidence of Hoffman's affiliation with the Moon sect meets the threshold requirement of relevance. Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401.
Acknowledging that the letter standing alone would be insufficient to demonstrate a “true threat,” the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of Hoffman’s religious and political views.1 Hoffman filed a motion in limine to exclude this evidence. The district court denied Hoffman’s motion without holding a hearing or receiving a proffer of the government’s proof, apparently relying on an erroneous representation by the prosecution that the evidence would show Hoffman wrote the letter in anger.
Hoffman’s mother took the stand at trial and testified that her son had once been a follower of the Reverend Moon. Though Hoffman had been “concerned” about Moon’s imprisonment, she said, she did not know “how adamant he felt about it.” Her conversations with Hoffman about Moon arose in the course of “normal discussions” between mother and son. When asked whether Hoffman believed that the President should take any specific action, Mrs. Hoffman replied, “We felt that he probably should have been pardoned.” She denied that Hoffman ever threatened or expressed to her an intention to harm the President.
Viewing this evidence in light of the definition of relevance and the majority’s own test for a “true threat,” I fail to see any legitimate purpose to which the jury could have put it. Surely, the evidence cannot be said to increase the probability that Hoffman intended the letter — -which did not even refer to Moon — to be perceived as threatening. At best, it establishes that Hoffman disagreed with President Reagan on a single issue. This fact, it should be noted, fails to distinguish Hoffman from a very significant portion of the population, including members of such organizations as the Democratic Party, Common Cause, Public Citizen, the ADL, trade unions, women’s rights, environmental protection, civil liberties, farmers, anti-nuclear warfare, pro-choice, etc., all of which disagree with the President on one or more issues. I trust the majority does not intend its holding here to suggest that such affiliations would be admissible in a similar case.
It is true that, in a controversial case, Reverend Moon was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to federal prison. See United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210 (2d Cir.1983) (affirming conviction), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 971, 104 S.Ct. 2344, 80 L.Ed.2d 818 (1984). It is also true that the President has the power to pardon federal prisoners, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, and that Hoffman — and his mother — would have liked to see the President exercise this power in Moon’s favor. But the test for relevance obviously requires more than that the evidence sought to be introduced coexist in time and space with the subject matter of the case. If there were evidence that followers of Moon have a propensity to engage in acts of violence (there was none), or that Hoffman himself was violently enraged by the President’s refusal to pardon Moon (his mother testified merely that he was “concerned”), or if the letter itself contained some reference to Reverend Moon or his imprisonment (it did not), *716then the evidence of Hoffman’s religious and political beliefs might have had some probative value. But in the absence of any such evidence, the jury should not have been permitted to speculate either that there was a link between the letter and the disagreement over Moon’s treatment, or that Hoffman contemplated doing anything more than simply writing the letter.
II.
Even if the evidence had been relevant, Rule 403 would require that it be excluded if its probative value were “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. The majority scoffs at Hoffman’s counsel’s suggestion that “many Americans look askance on their fellow citizens who join such cult style eastern religions,” stating that this assertion is “purely speculative.” Ante, at 710. Though I disagree with the majority’s statement, I prefer not to engage in a debate over whether Americans in fact have a tendency to shun or look down on particular religious minorities. Instead, I will simply point out that our law traditionally has recognized the potential for prejudice inherent in evidence of one’s religious affiliation or beliefs. See, e.g., McCormick, Evidence § 48 (1954) (“the disclosure of atheism or agnosticism, or of affiliation with some strange or unpopular sect, will often in many communities be fraught with intense prejudice”); Fed.R.Evid. 610 (evidence of religious beliefs not admissible to impeach or bolster witness’ credibility).
Religion is a highly emotional issue with a natural tendency to play upon a jury’s passions. Absent some compelling reason, evidence of a criminal defendant’s religion should not be admissible against him on the issue of guilt or innocence.
No compelling reason for admitting evidence of Hoffman’s prior religious affiliation was offered in this case. Indeed, the trial court, as mentioned earlier, did not even have before it an offer of proof of Mrs. Hoffman’s testimony when it denied Hoffman’s motion to exclude the evidence. Rather, the court had only the government’s representation that the evidence would show that Hoffman wrote the letter out of “anger” with the President for his failure to pardon Moon. As it turned out, the government was unable to elicit any such testimony. Hoffman’s mother stated merely that he was “concerned,” that she did not know how “adamant” he felt about the matter, that he never threatened or expressed an intention to threaten the President, that the topic arose in the course of ordinary discussions between mother and son, and that she and her son both felt that Moon “probably should have been pardoned.” Thus, the trial court’s ruling was based on erroneous representations by the prosecution as to what the evidence would show.
This result could have been avoided had the trial court held a hearing on the motion in limine and required the government to disclose its evidence in advance of trial so that its relevance and probative value could have been weighed against its potential prejudice. Instead, the court simply accepted the government’s representations, stating that it would “assum[e] the good faith of the U.S. Attorney ... as to why that evidence is admissible.” Assumed good faith of counsel, however, is not an appropriate yardstick by which to measure the admissibility of evidence. The duty of an advocate is to advance the interests of his client. It is the judge’s duty to ascertain the purpose and relevance of proffered evidence and to rule on its admissibility.
Twenty-five years ago a wise and experienced trial judge, advising me on my new responsibilities as a district judge, told me: “Don’t rely on the Assistant United States Attorneys to protect you from admitting improper evidence and committing reversible error. They are understandably as anxious to win as other counsel and will attempt to introduce evidence they believe will help them even if its admissibility is questionable. Frequently, the fact that it’s prejudicial is the very reason they offer it. You will have to decide whether or not it is relevant and, even if it is, whether or not its potential prejudice outweighs its proba*717tive value.” Through the years, I have found that to be sound advice. If the trial judge here had held a preliminary hearing, he would have ascertained that the evidence was not as condemning as the government had represented it would be, that it was being offered not simply to show a possible motive for a “true threat” but to establish that the communication was a “true threat,” and that there was no extrinsic evidence of an apparent determination by Hoffman to harm the President or do anything but write the letter. Under these circumstances, I trust he would have sustained the defense’s objection to the evidence.
The majority, in contrast, at least attempts to give reasons for admitting the testimony, but I find its reasons no more persuasive. The majority views the evidence as establishing that Hoffman had a “motive” to harm the President. This is a possible but highly speculative inference. Virtually none of the many people who disagree with the President, including Moon’s followers, intends to harm him. In any event, the majority concedes, as it must, that motive is not an element of a § 871(a) offense. Ante, at 709. Faced with this paradox, it proceeds, heroically, to reason that proof of motive was “nothing more than an evidentiary aid to the jury in its fact-finding process of rendering a verdict of guilt or innocence.” Id. I read this statement as an acknowledgement that irrelevant evidence was admitted, assisting the jury to render a verdict of guilty.
The evidence that Hoffman was a former Moonie who opposed the imprisonment of Reverend Moon had the effect of “casting him in the eyes of the jury as a member of a group with values allegedly alien to the rest of society ... implying that it was more likely that he committed the crime charged.” Pennsylvania v. Tirado, 473 Pa. 468, 375 A.2d 336 (Pa.1977). Absent some compelling reason for placing this evidence before the jury, the district court’s refusal to exclude it constitutes an abuse of discretion.
III.
As an additional reason for rejecting Hoffman’s claim of prejudice, the court relies on the fact that jurors were asked during voir dire whether they held any bias against Reverend Moon or the Unification Church. Hoffman’s claim of prejudice, the court writes, “is without merit when viewing the entire record of the district court’s meticulous, thorough, clear and concise questioning of potential jurors about their religious beliefs and prejudices.” Ante, at 710.
This holding represents, to my mind, a drastic change in the rules of evidence. In measuring prejudice under Rule 403, we are now told, a court should consider whether jurors were questioned about their prejudices during voir dire. If they were, and they denied any prejudices, the court presumably need not entertain arguments to exclude potentially prejudicial evidence under Rule 403.
This new rule of evidence presents enormous opportunities for abuse. Clever advocates may now use voir dire to neutralize any objections their opponents may raise at trial based on Rule 403. The rule is also at odds with the traditionally limited role of voir dire in assuring a fair trial. Though an unfair voir dire may offend due process, see, e.g., Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973), there is much more to due process than a fair voir dire. The court’s holding suggests that a fair voir dire may convert any subsequent evidentiary mistakes by the trial court into “harmless error.”
An additional problem with the court’s analysis is that it overlooks the well recognized fact that jurors may be unable or unwilling to identify and publicly declare their biases. The Supreme Court’s observation of nearly eighty years ago remains true today: “Bias or prejudice is such an elusive condition of the mind that it is most difficult, if not impossible, to always recognize its existence, and it might exist in the mind of one ... who was quite positive that he had no bias, and said that he was perfectly able to decide the question wholly *718uninfluenced by anything but the evidence.” Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183, 196, 29 S.Ct. 260, 265, 53 L.Ed. 465 (1909); see also Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 728, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1645, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). Recognizing this principle, Hoffman’s counsel moved to have prospective jurors separately questioned to promote candor in the voir dire. This motion, too, was denied.
Historically, at least, the question of whether the prejudicial impact of evidence outweighs its probative value has not been determined by what questions were asked at voir dire. Rather, Rule 403 has been understood to mandate an objective balancing process, including a pretrial hearing, if necessary, to determine precisely what the evidence will show. The fact that the jurors have denied that they would be prejudiced by particular evidence has never before, to my knowledge, entered into the balance. I earnestly hope that the majority opinion does not open the door to lawyers, particularly prosecutors, asking or seeking to have judges ask questions on voir dire about potentially prejudicial evidence such as prior criminal convictions, prior acci-’ dents, prior bankruptcy, or a host of other prejudicial matters. But I fear that such tactics are implicitly endorsed by the majority’s unprecedented holding.
IV.
Despite the obvious risk of prejudice attending the admission of the Moon evidence, the trial court gave no limiting instruction either at the time the evidence was introduced or later, when the jury was instructed. In fact, the trial court rejected Hoffman’s proposed instruction that “You should not be influenced by any person’s race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.” (Emphasis added). Although a limiting instruction might not have cured the error of admitting the evidence of Hoffman’s religious and political beliefs, it at least would have had the virtue of clarifying for the jurors what that evidence was not intended to prove. Cf. United States v. Reme, 738 F.2d 1156 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1104, 105 S.Ct. 2334, 85 L.Ed.2d 850 (1985). Instead, the jury was left free to follow its own prejudices and preconceptions and to speculate that such affiliation was evidence of a “true threal.”
V.
Perhaps even more critical than the erroneous admission of evidence as to Hoffman’s prior religious affiliation was the prosecution’s failure to demonstrate that this affiliation was probative of a “true threal.” 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) (1982) subjects to criminal prosecution anyone who “knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail ... any letter ... containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” Notwithstanding the statute’s broad language, the Supreme Court has made clear that not all threats on the President’s life are prohibited by § 871.
In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969), the Court reversed the conviction of a man who was overheard during a public rally at the Washington Monument stating, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” While the Court found § 871 constitutional on its face, it warned that convictions under the statute could not be obtained without proof of a “true threal.” Any lesser standard, the Court reasoned, would expose speakers to prosecution merely for exercising their first amendment rights:
The language of the political arena ... is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.” Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise.
Id. at 708, 89 S.Ct. at 1402.
Following Watts, the courts have developed various formulations to describe the *719degree of mens rea the government must prove to establish a “true threal.” Compare United States v. Hart, 457 F.2d 1087, 1090 (10th Cir.) (words must have been uttered as “declaration of an apparent determination to carry out the threat”), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861, 93 S.Ct. 150, 34 L.Ed.2d 108 (1972), and Roy v. United States, 416 F.2d 874, 877-78 (9th Cir.1969) (words contain true threat if reasonable person would foresee that hearers would take statement seriously), with United States v. Patillo, 431 F.2d 293 (4th Cir.1970), panel opinion adhered to, 438 F.2d 13, 15-16 (4th Cir.1971) (en banc) (speaker must have present intention to carry out threat, to incite others to carry out threat, or to disrupt presidential activities). See also Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35, 46, 95 S.Ct. 2091, 2098, 45 L.Ed.2d 1 (Marshall, J., concurring) (government must prove that “defendant appreciated the threatening nature of his statement and intended at least to convey the impression that the threat was a serious one”). All courts, however, have held that the circumstances surrounding the making of the threat must be taken into account to determine whether the threat was a true threal.2
The circumstances found to be corroborative of a true threat have included: (1) special knowledge of the President’s movements, see, e.g., Roy v. United States, 416 F.2d 874 (9th Cir.1969); (2) preparation of detailed schemes to carry out the threat, see, e.g., United States v. Hart, 457 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861, 93 S.Ct. 150, 34 L.Ed.2d 108 (1972); (3) post-arrest reaffirmation of intent to carry out the threat, see, e.g., United States v. Vincent, 681 F.2d 462 (6th Cir.1982); United States v. Smith, 670 F.2d 921 (10th Cir.1982); (4) ownership of or familiarity with guns or other weapons, see, e.g., United States v. Carrier, 708 F.2d 77 (2d Cir.1983); and (5) a professed intent to travel to the vicinity of the intended victim, see, e.g., United States v. Callahan, 702 F.2d 964 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983); United States v. Frederickson, 601 F.2d 1358 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 934, 100 S.Ct. 281, 62 L.Ed.2d 193 (1979).3
As previously indicated, none of the foregoing are present in this case. At trial, the government introduced no evidence that the defendant contemplated any action beyond writing the letter. There was no evidence that Hoffman was planning to travel to Washington, that he had formulated plans to assault the President, or that he owned the means to make good on a threal. Nor was there any evidence that any other member of the Moon sect had taken any action to threaten the President or that the sect believed or engaged in violence. Hoffman did not renew his threat upon arrest, but merely stated that he “didn’t know it was against the law to threaten the Presi*720dent.”4 As the Assistant United States Attorney acknowledged at the sentencing hearing:
[T]he evidence at trial did not show that Mr. Hoffman made any effort to actually bring his threat to fruition. And I’m not aware, as I sit in court today, of any actions on his part to, for example, acquire a firearm, place himself in the vicinity of the President, or do any of these other actions which would indicate an immediate and present plan on his part to actually act on the threat that he.made.
So we’re talking strictly here about the message that was sent by him to the White House.
The majority attempts to manufacture an elaborate scheme from the commonplace mechanics of writing and mailing a letter. According to the majority, Hoffman engaged in “seven conscious steps” to communicate his threat: he conceived it, wrote it, placed the “manuscript” in an envelope, “moistened and sealed” the envelope, addressed the envelope, placed a stamp on the envelope, and deposited the envelope and its contents in a mailbox. Ante, at 712-13. Breaking down a single simple activity into its component parts, however, does nothing to amplify its severity. It merely highlights the lack of real evidence of a “true threal.”
Equally misguided is the majority’s reliance on the fact that the mail room employee who opened Hoffman’s letter saw fit to forward it to the Secret Service. The court’s analysis is based on a misreading of Watts, which found that, in determining the context in which the defendant’s statement was made, it was appropriate to consider his listeners’ response. (They laughed). Watts, 394 U.S. at 708, 89 S.Ct. at 1401. From the reaction of Watts’ listeners, the Supreme Court inferred that the defendant was engaging in political hyperbole, not making a true threal. By contrast, no inference can be drawn from the reaction of a White House mail room employee or the members of the Secret Service, who are trained to react to and investigate anything possibly suspicious, including something that may be completely innocent and harmless, such as a gift package sent to the White House. See Finer, Mens Rea, The First Amendment, and Threats Against the Life of the President, 18 Ariz. L.Rev. 863, 868 n. 27 (1976). Significantly, the Watts Court gave no weight to the fact that police and prosecutors responded to Watts’ statement as though it were a true threal.
VI.
Had the evidence of Hoffman’s religious and political beliefs been excluded, as it should have been, all that would have remained was the letter itself and the indentation analysis showing that Hoffman wrote the letter. Clearly, this evidence alone is not sufficient to support a conviction under § 871. With or without the references to Moon, however, the record does not sustain a conviction.
Hoffman’s letter contains the words “Ronnie, Listen Chump! Resign or You’ll Get Your Brains Blown Out.” Beneath the text of the letter is a childish drawing of what looks like a popgun with its missile falling to the ground. Like the statement at issue in Watts, Hoffman's statement is expressly conditioned on an event outside his control — here the President’s resignation — and suggests that the author did not intend to act upon it. Watts, 394 U.S. at 708, 89 S.Ct. at 1401. Alexander v. United States, 418 F.2d 1203, 1206-07 (D.C.Cir.1969).
The supposed “threat” is phrased in the passive voice and expresses no intention on the writer’s part to kill the President. On the contrary, it states a mere prediction, albeit a distasteful one, that if the President does not resign he will get his brains blown out. In this sense, it is indistinguishable from a so-called psychic’s predic*721tion that the President will be killed in a particular year.5
In no case before today has a mere prediction been found to constitute a true threal. Indeed, even in cases pre-dating Waits, the courts were inclined to throw out indictments premised on such innocuous expressions as predictions or even on strong statements of desire. See, e.g., United States v. Marino, 148 F.Supp. 75 (N.D.Ill.1957) (“There can be slain no sacrifice to God more acceptable than an unjust President” and “The officials who aught to be arrested and shot are protected! There can therefore be no respect for any law or its Officers!”); United States v. Daulong, 60 F.Supp. 235 (W.D.La.1945) (“If someone does not kill him (the President) he, the defendant, had a notion to do it himself” and “He hoped somebody gets him (the President) tonight, and if somebody did not, he, the defendant, felt like going up there and doing it himself”). Such statements, substantially stronger in some instances than Hoffman’s letter, have been found insufficient to establish the mens rea required under § 871(a). As the Daulong court observed, “The statute does not penalize the imagining, wishing or hoping that the act will be committed by someone else.” 60 F.Supp. at 236.
Hoffman’s conviction is reminiscent of those obtained under the old Statute of Treasons, 25 Edw. III, c. 2 (1351), the notorious law which made it a crime to “compass or imagine the Death of the King.” See Watts, 394 U.S. at 709, 89 S.Ct. at 1402 (Douglas, J., concurring). Indeed, this case harkens back to the fifteenth century prosecution of one Thomas Burdet, who was executed for conspiring to kill the King and Prince “by casting their nativity, foretelling the speedy death of both, and scattering papers containing the prophecy among the people.” E. Foss, Judges of England 416 (1851); See Finer, Mens Rea, The First Amendment, and Threats Against the Life of the President, 18 Ariz.L.Rev. 863, 865 & n. 13 (1976). I am disturbed that if the majority is correct, we have not come so far in the last six hundred years as one reading Watts might have thought.
VII.
I am also disturbed that the majority finds it necessary to discuss the contents of the presentence report in its statement of the facts. Obviously, the presentence report was not before the jury that convicted Hoffman. It was added to the appellate record by Hoffman so that he could challenge the length of his sentence. While the majority upholds the sentence, it does not discuss what if any relevance the unfavorable “facts” it selects from the presentence report have to the sentencing issue. The question understandably arises in my mind, and may in others, whether the majority considers these “facts” supportive of its finding on the issue of guilt.
Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure establishes that, absent a waiver by the defendant, the contents of a presen-tence report are strictly off-limits to a jury or court considering the issue of guilt or innocence. It follows a fortiori, I believe, that a court of appeals may not rely on the presentence report in reviewing the propriety of a conviction.
During the same term that Watts was decided, the Supreme Court held that submission of a presentence report to a trial judge before the defendant pleads guilty or is convicted “constitutes error of the clearest kind.” Gregg v. United States, 394 U.S. 489, 492, 89 S.Ct. 1134, 1136, 22 L.Ed.2d 442 (1969). Justice White, writing for the Court, emphasized the need for strict compliance with Rule 32:
*722There are no formal limitations on [pre-sentence reports’] contents, and they may rest on hearsay and contain information bearing no relation whatever to the crime with which the defendant is charged. To permit the ex parte introduction of this sort of material to the judge who will pronounce the defendant’s guilt or innocence or who will preside over a jury trial would seriously contravene the rule’s purpose of preventing possible prejudice from premature submission of the presentence report.
Id. All these reasons for respecting the integrity of Rule 32 at trial apply with equal force on appeal.
If the majority considers the “facts” it selects from the presentence report — none of which have been tested by cross-examination or proven beyond a reasonable doubt — to be relevant to the sentencing issue, it should explain why. The reasons are not self-evident for, from all that appears in the record, the district court did not rely on them. If, on the other hand, the majority considers these “facts” pertinent to the question of guilt or innocence, its holding constitutes “error of the clearest kind.” Gregg, 394 U.S. at 492, 89 S.Ct. at 1136.
Though I share the majority's concern for the safety of the President, I would not unnecessarily sacrifice the guarantees of the Constitution for that ostensible purpose. Nor do I think our task is made easier or our analysis more objective by invoking the names of the victims of the assassinations and assassination attempts (all, incidentally, without any prior threat) that have marred this nation’s recent history. Ante, at 713. Watts, after all, was decided in the wake of the Kennedy and King murders, but the Supreme Court was not deterred in that case from applying the mandates of the Constitution in a detached and faithful manner. Our review of Hoffman’s case should be equally objective. The delicate balance between first amendment freedom and public order requires no less.
The majority today, by its reference to these tragic events, simply reveals its own confusion over the vital differences between speech and action. Justice Brandéis cautioned that “The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376-77, 47 S.Ct. 641, 648-49, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (Brandéis, J., concurring). To that list might be added, the difference between mere prophesy or hope and an apparent determination to act.
Hoffman's letter to the President was juvenile and offensive. But shooting off at the mouth is not the equivalent of firing a weapon and it is not and should not be made a crime.
I would honor the first amendment and reverse the conviction.

. In its response to the defendant’s motion in limine, the government stated that "This information is critical to an understanding of the context of the statement, and of the willfulness of defendant in making it.”

. To rebut the assertion in text, the majority cites United States v. Melendy, 438 F.2d 531 (9th Cir.1971). Melendy is hardly a persuasive precedent. The opinion, an unsigned per curiam, consists of four sentences covering less than half a page in the West reporter. It contains no citation to Watts or any other case and no mention of the first amendment. Quoted in its entirety, the opinion reads as follows:
The judgment of conviction for a threat on the life of the President of the United States is affirmed. 18 U.S.C. § 871.
The defendant, incarcerated at Lompoc, California, did not have much capacity to carry out his threat, but the threat is the crime.
The defense was that defendant did not have the requisite intent for the crime. That was a question of fact which he lost.
I confess that I did not take this wholly conclu-sory and unsatisfactory memorandum into account when I wrote that “All courts” since Watts have acknowledged the necessity of considering the circumstances surrounding the making of a threal.

. The majority accuses me of applying an "actual intent” standard of procf. Ante, at 707. To the contrary, I rely solely on cases of those circuits that apply the less stringent "apparent determination” or "reasonable person” standards. Only the Fourth Circuit requires the government to prove a "present intention either to injure the President, or incite others to injure him, or to restrict his movements." United States v. Patillo, 438 F.2d 13, 16 (4th Cir.1971) (en banc). My analysis does not draw upon the cases from that circuit, however. Ironically, it is the majority that relies on Patillo. Ante, at 709.

. Prior to this case at least, Hoffman was correct. Threatening the President without more was not against the law.

. Unlike the hypothetical statement “I will kill you” posited by the majority, ante, at 711 n. 5, Hoffman’s statement is conditioned on an event outside his control, it is phrased in the passive voice, and it lacks any expression of intention to act on the writer’s part. As I point out in text, each of these considerations has been found in prior cases to weigh against a rinding of a "true threal." The majority seems to think that I would rind a statement such as “I will kill you” to be a mere prediction simply because it is expressed in the future tense. Id. To the contrary, "I will kill you” is clearly an unequivocal declaration of an intention to act.