United States v. Dennis, 132 F.4th 214

Willie Dennis was convicted by a jury in the Southern District of New York for three counts of cyberstalking K&L Gates LLP partners, stemming from repeated, abusive electronic communications following his ouster from the firm in 2019.
Dennis represented himself at trial but was represented by counsel on appeal. He challenged the conviction on constitutional, instructional, evidentiary, and judicial conduct grounds.
The trial evidence included numerous messages from Dennis to three partners, some allegedly threatening physical harm, references to violence, and statements interpreted as targeting their families.
The district court allowed limited cross-examination and precluded evidence about Dennis's ouster and related police activity as irrelevant; also, it addressed his pro se status in remarks to the jury after Dennis raised it.
Sentenced to concurrent 24-month terms, Dennis appealed, arguing First Amendment violations and procedural errors.
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed convictions as to two counts (Bicks and Bostick) but reversed as to one (Cottle), holding only the former involved "true threats" outside First Amendment protection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 2261A(2)(B) as applied	Statute regulated speech protected by First Amendment unless communications were "true threats."	Evidence proved Dennis communicated "true threats"; thus no First Amendment violation.	Statute is constitutional as applied if only "true threats" are convicted. Evidence supported this for Bicks and Bostick but not Cottle.
Sufficiency of Evidence	Evidence insufficient to show that messages were true threats (serious intent to harm).	Messages (esp. to Bicks/Bostick) contained explicit/implicit threats; intent to cause fear proven.	Sufficient for Bicks/Bostick (Counts 1 & 4), insufficient for Cottle (Count 2—reversed).
Jury Instructions	Trial court erred by not requiring proof of "true threats," and definitions were too broad.	Sufficiently tailored; even if error, Dennis did not object or was not prejudiced.	Instructions were error but not plain error; no reasonable probability of different verdict.
Trial Fairness (evidence & judge's comments)	Preclusion of evidence and court's remarks about pro se status denied fair trial.	Rulings within discretion; judge’s comments not prejudicial; curative instructions given.	No violation of fair trial rights; evidentiary and judicial conduct within discretion.

Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (articulates the "true threat" doctrine—serious expression of intent to commit violence is not protected speech)
Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (underscores that "true threats" must be outside First Amendment, and conviction requires at least recklessness as to threatening nature)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sets standard for sufficiency of the evidence—any rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (the First Amendment protects even highly distressing and offensive speech)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self-representation in criminal cases)
United States v. Malik, 16 F.3d 45 (true threat can be implied and assessed in context)
United States v. Turner, 720 F.3d 411 (context and objective recipient's perception control "true threat" inquiry)