Keerikkattil v. United States, 313 A.3d 591

Ranjith V. Keerikkattil was terminated from Deloitte in 2015 for inappropriate conduct toward a junior colleague, S.S.
Following termination, Keerikkattil engaged in a prolonged campaign against S.S., including sending threatening communications and contacting S.S.'s employer and government agencies with damaging accusations.
Keerikkattil was convicted by a jury in D.C. Superior Court of criminal stalking under D.C. Code § 22-3133 based largely on his repeated, distressing conduct directed at S.S., which included a cross-country visit to S.S.’s parents' home.
Keerikkattil appealed, arguing instructional error regarding First Amendment protections (based on Mashaud v. Boone), insufficiency of the evidence, lack of jurisdiction, and sentencing error regarding probation.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction (finding no substantial rights affected by any instructional error), found the evidence sufficient, confirmed jurisdiction, but remanded for resentencing because probation was imposed over Keerikkattil's objection in violation of D.C. law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury Instruction—First Amendment (Mashaud)	Jury was not instructed to limit consideration of conduct to unprotected speech as required by Mashaud.	Error, if any, was not preserved and did not affect substantial rights—conviction could stand on non-speech conduct.	Not plain error; no reversal.
Sufficiency of Evidence	Government lacked evidence for conviction under narrowed First Amendment standards.	Evidence of Oregon trip and post-trip texts supports conviction under statute even after Mashaud.	Sufficient evidence upheld conviction.
Jurisdiction	Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because conduct occurred outside D.C.	Jurisdiction proper since victim received communications in D.C.	Jurisdiction upheld.
Sentencing—Probation	Probation imposed despite defendant's objection, which is not permitted by statute.	Government acknowledged error; court should have obtained consent.	Remand for resentencing; probation cannot be imposed without consent.

Mashaud v. Boone, 295 A.3d 1139 (D.C. 2023) (narrowed D.C. stalking statute to only cover speech falling within categorical First Amendment exceptions)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (structural error analysis for instructional errors)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless error standard applies to most instructional errors)
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (use of speech as evidence rather than as the regulated conduct does not trigger First Amendment issues)
Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503 (2021) (plain error review standard)
Carrell v. United States, 165 A.3d 314 (D.C. 2017) (mens rea requirement for criminal threats in D.C.)