United States v. Twitty, 689 F. App'x 890

Andre Twitty, previously convicted in 1999 for making bomb and other threats, mailed threatening letters in 2011 from federal prison to prosecutors and judges involved in his prior appeals and habeas litigation. He admitted writing and mailing the letters.
The letters referenced specific judges, prosecutors, court orders, weapons (e.g., Colt .357, Remington .700), ricin, and language from prior opinions and orders.
Twitty was prosecuted in Colorado for two counts of mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c); his first conviction was reversed and remanded after Elonis required proof of a mental state of purpose or knowledge that the communication would be viewed as a threat.
On retrial the superseding indictment pleaded the Elonis mental-state element; the government introduced the threatening letters, redacted court orders denying Twitty relief, and photos of the weapons/ammunition referenced in the letters.
Twitty objected at trial to admission of the court orders (relevance and hearsay) and the weapon photos (relevance and Rule 403 — cumulativeness and unfair prejudice). The district court admitted both sets of exhibits.
The jury convicted Twitty on both counts; on appeal he challenged the evidentiary rulings. The Tenth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of court orders	Orders were relevant to show motive/intent and to provide context for the letters	Twitty: orders irrelevant beyond showing losses; hearsay; prejudicial language exceeded probative value	Admitted: orders were relevant to motive and listener effect, not hearsay when used to show impact on Twitty; no abuse of discretion
Admission of weapon and ammunition photos	Photos provided context and showed referenced weapons were real, supporting intent to threaten	Twitty: photos irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, cumulative; court failed to make on-the-record Rule 403 balancing	Admitted: photos relevant and probative; not unfairly prejudicial or cumulative; court’s implicit 403 ruling upheld after de novo review

Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (mental-state requirement for § 876(c): purpose or knowledge that communication will be viewed as a threat)
United States v. Ford, 613 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
In re Nat. Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litig., 845 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 2017) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)
United States v. Smalls, 605 F.3d 765 (10th Cir. 2010) (statements offered to show effect on listener are not hearsay)
United States v. Cerno, 529 F.3d 926 (10th Cir. 2008) (Rule 403 balancing requires prejudice to substantially outweigh probative value)
United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. 1999) (implicit Rule 403 determinations can be upheld; appellate de novo balancing available)
United States v. De Vaughn, 694 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2012) (failure to preserve objection in district court limits appellate review)