United States v. Jeffrey Williamson
903 F.3d 124
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Jeff H. Williamson made a June 19, 2014 911 call threatening to shoot FBI Special Agent Brian Schmitt; he admitted making the threat.
- Government presented evidence of a multi‑year pattern of harassing communications by Williamson referencing Schmitt (including prior tickets and threatening messages in June 2014).
- Williamson, representing himself at trial, contended he lacked §115(a)(1)(B) retaliatory intent and alternatively argued entrapment (that FBI harassment induced the threat).
- Jury convicted Williamson of threatening a federal law‑enforcement officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §115(a)(1)(B); district court sentenced him to 96 months imprisonment (above the 15–21 month guidelines range).
- On appeal, Williamson challenged (1) indictment sufficiency, (2) denial of an entrapment instruction, (3) denial of access to jury‑commission records under 28 U.S.C. §1867, and (4) aspects of his sentence; the government conceded the §1867 error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williamson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency | Indictment failed to identify specific "official duties" of Schmitt motivating the threat, so it was vague. | Statute text plus time/place/identity adequately informed defendant under Rule 7(c) and the Constitution. | Affirmed: indictment adequate; parroting statute with time/place/identity suffices. |
| Entrapment instruction | Harassment by Schmitt/FBI induced Williamson to threaten; entrapment instruction warranted. | No evidence government solicited or suggested the criminal conduct; no inducement. | Affirmed: no sufficient evidence of inducement; court properly refused instruction. |
| Access to jury records (§1867) | Sought inspection of jury‑commission records to evaluate fair‑cross‑section claim; district court denied. | District court denied for lack of sworn statement and insufficient allegations. Govt concedes error. | Reversed/remanded: defendant entitled to inspect jury records under §1867(f); no sworn statement required for inspection. |
| Sentencing (upward departure/First Amendment/substantive reasonableness) | Departure improper; court relied on protected speech; sentence substantively unreasonable. | Departure supported by U.S.S.G. comment and §3553(a) factors; speech considered only insofar as relevant to sentencing; sentence not an abuse of discretion. | Affirmed: district court permissibly relied on Guideline comment and §3553(a), law‑protected communications were legitimately relevant, and 96‑month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (statutory language in an indictment often suffices to inform defendant of charged offense)
- Resendiz‑Ponce v. United States, 549 U.S. 102 (indictment parroting statute with time/place can be sufficient)
- Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (indictment must allege core factual matter central to criminality)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (entrapment instruction warranted only when evidence could support it)
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (defining entrapment as implanting disposition to commit crime)
- Solofa (cited authority on solicitation requirement) — (no official reporter citation in opinion; omitted from list)
- Test v. United States, 420 U.S. 28 (defendant has broad right to inspect jury lists)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (limits on standby counsel that preserve defendant's control and jury perception)
- Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (court may consider beliefs/associations at sentencing when relevant)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review framework and abuse‑of‑discretion standard)