United States v. Rathbun, 98 F.4th 40

John Michael Rathbun was convicted in federal court for attempting to transport and receive an explosive, attempting to damage or destroy property by fire/explosive, and making false statements to investigators in connection with the placement of a homemade firebomb near a Jewish living facility in Longmeadow, Massachusetts.
The device, found with Rathbun’s blood and a Christian religious tract used as a wick, was discovered near the Jewish Geriatric Services Inc. campus; Rathbun was tied to the scene by DNA, phone data, and incriminating statements.
No evidence of anti-Semitic or white supremacist motive was found; the government later abandoned that theory.
Over two trials, Rathbun initially was only convicted on the false statements count; he was convicted on all counts in the second trial after introduction of additional contested evidence.
On appeal, Rathbun claimed he was denied a fair trial due to the admission of allegedly irrelevant and prejudicial testimony, purported cumulative religious themes, and propensity evidence related to his drug use.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Rabbi Kosofsky’s Testimony	Kosofsky's testimony was irrelevant, cumulative, and unfairly prejudicial	Testimony provided unique, relevant detail; not unfairly prejudicial	No abuse of discretion; admission affirmed
Admission of BGEA Officers’ Testimony	Testimonies about the tract’s religious content inserted religious bias	Testimony relevant to how tract became available; limited in scope	No abuse of discretion; admission affirmed
Admission of Evidence of Rathbun’s Prior Drug Use	Motel incident was inadmissible propensity evidence, unduly prejudicial	Evidence relevant to state of mind, not offered for propensity	Any error was harmless; conviction stands
Cumulative Error from Religious Themes and Drug Evidence	Cumulative prejudicial effect denied fair trial	No cumulative unfair prejudice; evidence either harmless or not error	No cumulative error; conviction affirmed

United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486 (1st Cir. 1997) (victim reaction testimony may be relevant to the threat’s nature)
United States v. Cruz-Ramos, 987 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2021) (relevancy is a low threshold for admissibility)
United States v. DiRosa, 761 F.3d 144 (1st Cir. 2014) (unfair prejudice under Rule 403 is evidence that could lead to verdict on improper grounds)
United States v. Charles, 456 F.3d 249 (1st Cir. 2006) (evidence relevant if it explains chain of events forming context of the crime)