United States v. Elonis
897 F. Supp. 2d 335
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Elonis was convicted by a jury on four counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for posting threatening comments on Facebook; the jury acquitted on one count.
- Defendant moved post-trial to dismiss the indictment (Rule 12(b)(3)(B)) and for arrest of judgment (Rule 34) and for a new trial (Rule 33).
- Indictment tracks the statute, includes dates, locations, and target of threats, and alleges the nature of the threats.
- Court addressed sufficiency of the indictment, voluntariness/willfulness standard, and the interstate-commerce element as applied to internet communications.
- Court considered Rule 33 and 34 challenges, and weighed whether the evidence supported Counts Three and Five as true threats; ruled against defendant on all post-trial motions.
- Court discussed jury instructions and how the”willfully” standard is interpreted under Third Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of indictment under Rule 12(b)(3)(B) | Elonis’s indictment adequately states the offense. | Indictment lacks specific threatening words; insufficient to allege elements. | Indictment sufficient; meets elements and provides notice. |
| Meaning of willfully under § 875(c) | Willfully requires intent to threaten or knowledge of punishment. | Willfully requires intent to violate the law or bad purpose. | Willfully is objective; requires intentional statement in a context a reasonable person interprets as a serious threat. |
| Interstate commerce requirement for internet threats | Facebook postings travel in interstate commerce through internet use. | Not every internet posting travels interstate; issue is whether the fact pattern satisfies element. | Instruction correct under Third Circuit precedent; internet use satisfies interstate-commerce element. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict Counts Three and Five as true threats | Evidence showed public posts, non-contingent, and fear among readers; true threats established. | Posts were conditional or non-threatening; First Amendment concerns. | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could find true threats beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Plain error review of jury instruction not preserved at trial | Not plain error; instruction consistent with Kosma and circuit precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kosma v. United States, 951 F.2d 554 (3d Cir. 1991) (defines the objective, reasonable speaker test for willfulness in threat cases)
- United States v. Starnes, 583 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2009) (discusses levels of willfulness in Third Circuit context)
- United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (Internet as instrumentality of interstate commerce; connection can be intrastate yet satisfies jurisdiction)
- United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2002) (transmission of internet communications can satisfy interstate-commerce element)
- United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2006) (cites internet-based threats and jurisdictional principles)