United States v. Turner, 720 F.3d 411

Turner posted June 2–3, 2009 blog entries urging the killings of three Seventh Circuit judges after a ruling on the Second Amendment, followed by posting judges’ work addresses and a courthouse map.
Turner’s statements were tied to prior violence against a federal judge’s family and to the Hale case, with Turner citing real murders as context.
Turner was indicted for threatening three federal judges under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B); trial occurred in 2010, with Turner defending as political hyperbole.
The district court instructed the jury on true threats under an objective standard and allowed First Amendment defenses, emphasizing that threats are not protected speech.
The jury convicted Turner unanimously; Turner appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, and several evidentiary rulings and statements by the government.
The majority affirmed the conviction, applying an objective true-threat test and finding Turner’s statements constituted a true threat; Judge Pooler dissented on the sufficiency issue, arguing the speech was advocacy, not a true threat.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Turner’s statements were a true threat under § 115(a)(1)(B).	Turner argues his words were political hyperbole, not a true threat.	Turner contends his statements were advocacy, not directed threats.	Yes; the evidence supported a true-threat finding.
jury instructions adequately defined a true threat and related First Amendment standards.	Turner argues Kelner language was required in instructions.	District court’s instructions aligned with precedents; Kelner language not required.	No reversible error; instructions were adequate.
Whether government statements about audience and First Amendment protections unfairly prejudiced Turner.	Statements inflated Turner’s audience and scope of influence.	Evidence of audience was relevant to intent and impact.	No plain error or reversible prejudice.
Whether the district court appropriately admitted testimony from the judges and related evidence.	Testimony was irrelevant or prejudicial beyond probative value.	Testimony about interpretations of statements is highly relevant.	Proper and admissible; no reversible error.
Whether Turner’s ineffective assistance claim should be considered on direct appeal.	IAC merits consideration now.	IAC claims are better addressed in a 2255 petition.	Declined; issues to be pursued in a habeas proceeding.

Davila v. United States, 461 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2006) (true threats; sufficiency review; context matters)
Malik v. United States, 16 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 1994) (true threats; implicit threats may be punished)
United States v. Kelner, 534 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1976) (dicta on threat definition; facial clarity not required)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 2003) (true threats; contextual analysis permitted)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (Supreme Court, 1969) (incitement test; distinction from true threats)
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (Supreme Court, 1969) (political hyperbole; First Amendment limits)
Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (true threats vs. advocacy; public speech considerations)
Claiborne Hardware Co. v. Hinds,, 458 U.S. 886 (Supreme Court, 1982) (speech as political advocacy; public forums)
United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2011) (incitement vs. true threats; ambiguous language)
Planned Parenthood I / Planned Parenthood II, 244 F.3d 1007; 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2001; 2002) (distinguishing true threats from advocacy; context matters)