(HC) Nixon v. Morales, 2:24-cv-01531

Brandon Nixon was convicted in California state court of making a criminal threat (Cal. Penal Code § 422) against Elk Grove Police Department officers via a Facebook post depicting their photographs with crosshairs over their faces and threatening language.
Nixon had a documented history of conflict with law enforcement, including prior threatening social media posts, confrontational visits to police stations, and a 2017 felony conviction for weapons offenses stemming from a similar incident.
The key Facebook post forming the basis of the threat was public, and Nixon was aware law enforcement was monitoring his social media based on prior incidents.
The conviction rested on the jury’s finding, supported by evidence beyond the Facebook post itself, that Nixon intended for the officers to see the post and that it was a "true threat" sufficient to cause fear.
Nixon filed a federal habeas corpus petition raising several claims: insufficiency of evidence, improper admission of prior threats, lack of a causation jury instruction, and cumulative error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for criminal threat	The Facebook post was not a "true threat" nor intended for officers to see	Jury could infer intent and threat from circumstances; post met statutory criteria	Court found sufficient evidence supported the conviction
Admission of evidence of prior threats	Admission of 2013 threats was unduly prejudicial and irrelevant	Prior threats were probative of intent, and not unduly prejudicial under state law	Admission did not violate due process; no habeas relief
Failure to provide causation jury instruction	The court erred by not instructing on causation per CALCRIM No. 240	No real dispute about causation; post was itself cause of the fear	Any error was harmless; jury instructions sufficient
Cumulative error	Cumulative effect of multiple errors violated due process	No prejudicial error occurred individually or cumulatively	No cumulative error; habeas relief denied

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (differentiating "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" of Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishing standard for federal review of evidentiary sufficiency—rational jury standard)
Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006) ("clearly established law" limited to Supreme Court holdings)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (AEDPA deference demands more than disagreement with state court)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas review does not permit reexamination of state evidentiary rulings unless they violate due process)