United States v. Hunt, 82 F.4th 129

Background

After the 2020 election, Brendan Hunt posted violent threats on social media; most prominently a BitChute video (posted Jan. 8, 2021) titled “Kill Your Senators” urging viewers to “slaughter” members of Congress and saying he would “go there myself and shoot them and kill them.”
The BitChute video and three other statements (Dec. 6, 2020–Jan. 8, 2021) formed the basis of an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) (threats against federal officials); Hunt was arrested Jan. 19, 2021.
Hunt’s in-person trial in E.D.N.Y. occurred under COVID-19 precautions: masks, social distancing, limited courtroom occupancy, and live audio/video feeds to adjacent courtrooms; Hunt’s father was excluded from the trial courtroom for capacity/health reasons.
The district court instructed the jury on § 115’s elements, stating the government must prove intent to impede/intimidate/interfere and that the government need not prove the threats actually reached the officials.
The jury convicted Hunt on the BitChute video as a "true threat"; acquitted on the other charged statements. The district court applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement (finding Hunt testified falsely about his intent) and sentenced him to 19 months (Guidelines range 41–51 months before variance).
Hunt appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence / constitutional-fact review for true threats, (2) erroneous jury instruction on intent-to-reach, (3) Sixth Amendment public-trial violation by excluding his father, and (4) sentencing errors (perjury enhancement and improper consideration of rehabilitation).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hunt)	Defendant's Argument (U.S.)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence / constitutional-fact doctrine	Court must independently review (constitutional-fact doctrine) and find the BitChute video was protected speech or otherwise insufficient to be a true threat.	Jury’s factual finding should be reviewed deferentially; constitutional-fact doctrine does not apply to § 115 true-threat determinations.	Rejected Hunt’s call for de novo review; applied deferential Jackson standard and held evidence was sufficient to support finding of a true threat.
Jury instruction on intent-to-reach officials	The jury should have been instructed that conviction required proof Hunt intended his statements to reach targeted officials.	The district court’s instruction (allowing the jury to consider whether Hunt intended his statements to reach officials, but not requiring it) was correct; issue not preserved.	No plain error: instruction acceptable; no binding precedent demanded Hunt’s proposed wording.
Public-trial right (exclusion of defendant’s father)	Excluding his father violated Sixth Amendment public-trial guarantee.	Exclusion advanced overriding public-health interest (COVID-19); limited by live feed; alternatives considered.	No plain error: partial closure justified by public-health interest, alternatives (live feed) provided, and jury was instructed not to infer lack of support.
Sentencing: obstruction enhancement and rehabilitation consideration	(1) §3C1.1 perjury enhancement unsupported—court only noted jury disbelief; (2) court impermissibly considered rehabilitative goals in imposing sentence.	(1) District court made required findings identifying false testimony, intent, and materiality; (2) discussion of rehabilitation was permissible context under §3553(a) and Tapia.	Affirmed: enhancement properly applied (findings sufficient); mention of rehabilitation did not render the sentence improper.

Key Cases Cited

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., 466 U.S. 485 (1984) (explains constitutional-fact doctrine and when courts independently review speech rulings)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
Counterman v. Colorado, 143 S. Ct. 2106 (2023) (mens rea requirement—recklessness—as to whether speech would be viewed as a threat)
United States v. Turner, 720 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2013) (true-threat standard and that threats need not meet Brandenburg incitement test)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (four-part test for closing criminal proceedings to the public)
United States v. Smith, 426 F.3d 567 (2d Cir. 2005) (application of Waller factors in partial-closure context)
Dunnigan v. United States, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjury-based obstruction enhancement requires explicit findings identifying false testimony)
United States v. Zagari, 111 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1997) (standards for perjury-based §3C1.1 enhancement)
United States v. Davila, 461 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2006) (contextual events may inform how a reasonable person understands a threat)