United States v. Jonathan Petras
879 F.3d 155
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Petras and Shaker, members of a Chaldean Christian group traveling on a commercial flight, engaged in loud, aggressive, and noncompliant behavior during a San Diego–Chicago flight that diverted to Amarillo; crew and passengers reported profanity, lunging, and threats, and police removed them after landing.
- A grand jury indicted Petras and Shaker (and two co-defendants) under 49 U.S.C. § 46504 for intimidating flight crew members; two co-defendants were acquitted, Petras and Shaker convicted after a six-day trial.
- Sentences: Petras — seven months imprisonment + three years supervised release; Shaker — five months imprisonment + three years supervised release; both ordered to pay restitution to the airline.
- On appeal defendants raised multiple challenges: Batson strike claim, jury instructions (definition/mens rea of "intimidation"), First Amendment and due process (overbreadth/vagueness/as-applied), insufficiency of evidence (Shaker), and Sixth Amendment challenge to restitution.
- The Fifth Circuit applied precedent (notably United States v. Hicks) throughout, reviewing Batson for clear error (trial-court factual determinations), jury instructions de novo (statutory interpretation), constitutional claims de novo, and sufficiency de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Petras/Shaker's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to prosecutor’s strikes of two Black venirepersons | Strikes were pretextual and racially motivated (point to statistics and comparable white jurors) | Proffered race-neutral reasons (lack of flying experience; facial piercing; anti-Muslim views) | District court did not clearly err; Batson denial affirmed |
| Jury instruction: definition of "intimidation" | Should require intent to place victim in fear of bodily harm or death (specific intent) | Hicks controls: intimidation may be defined as words/conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear; general intent sufficient | Instruction upheld; no intervening law to overrule Hicks |
| First Amendment / overbreadth / vagueness of § 46504 | Statute chills protected speech, is overbroad and vague | Hicks rejected identical constitutional challenges; statute serves compelling air-safety interest and is sufficiently narrow | Constitutional challenges rejected; § 46504 upheld |
| Sufficiency of evidence (Shaker) | Actions were non-threatening and insufficient to show intimidation or interference with safety duties | Testimony and conduct (yelling, lunging, demands, crew fear, diversion) show intimidation and interference with safety-related duties | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| Restitution and Sixth Amendment jury right | Restitution imposed on judge’s findings violates right to jury factfinding | Fifth Circuit precedent holds Alleyne does not extend to restitution determinations | Restitution affirmed; Alleyne not controlling post-Rosbottom |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hicks, 980 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992) (construing predecessor statute and upholding definition of "intimidation" and constitutionality in air-travel context)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibiting race-based peremptory strikes)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (procedure for Batson burden-shifting)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (review of proffered race-neutral reasons and pretext in Batson review)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (defining "true threats" and intent-to-fear concept)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (content-based restrictions and time/place/manner analysis)
- Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (mens rea in threat statutes; limitation on interpreting mental-state requirements)
- United States v. Rosbottom, 763 F.3d 408 (Fifth Circuit: Sixth Amendment jury right does not require jury findings for restitution)