United States v. Walker
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23504
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Walker was convicted of interstate stalking, cyberstalking, and mailing a threatening letter after a custody dispute with Amy in Puerto Rico.
- The couple moved to Puerto Rico in 2006; Amy left in 2007 and obtained court orders restraining Walker from removing A.M.W. from Puerto Rico.
- Walker traveled from Michigan to Puerto Rico; Amy obtained custody orders and alerted authorities as the dispute intensified.
- Pretrial and trial evidence included threats, emails with violent content, and investigations by FBI agents in Puerto Rico.
- The district court convicted Walker on the interstate stalking count, four cyberstalking counts, and one threatening-letter count, and sentenced him to 137 months; other counts were acquitted.
- On appeal, Walker challenges venue, statutory interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(1), sufficiency of the threatening-letter count, indictment form (duplication/multiplicity), evidentiary rulings, and sentencing rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue change of venue denial was error | Walker asserts prejudice from trying in the same courthouse where Amy worked | The absence of pervasive pretrial publicity and convenience support denial | No abuse of discretion; Puerto Rico was reasonably convenient and no mandatory transfer required |
| Interpretation of interstate stalking statute | § 2261A(1) requires an act during travel or after travel | Disjunctive language covers travel with intent to harm/harass resulting in fear | Statute properly reads to cover travel with intent to harm/harass and cause fear; evidence supports conviction |
| Sufficiency of the threatening-letter conviction under § 876(c) | Letter to Tony Walker could not constitute a threat to Amy; not mailed to her | Letter contained threat to Amy and was mailed/related to the death/violence context | Letter reasonably perceived as threatening Amy; § 876(c) satisfied; First Amendment not violated |
| Rule 12(b)(3) challenges waived | Duplicity/multiplicity challenges should be reviewable | Waived under Rule 12(e) for failure to raise pretrial; no good cause shown to excuse | Waiver valid; challenges not reviewable absent good cause; no reversible error |
| Admission of challenged evidence and harmless error | Certain lay opinions and hearsay should have been excluded | Any error was harmless given centrality of other evidence and overall strength of the case | Any evidentiary errors were harmless or non-constitutional; no reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pérez-González, 445 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for venue rulings; abuse requires misweighting factors)
- United States v. Dwinells, 508 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2007) (standard for Rule 29 sufficiency de novo review)
- United States v. O'Brien, 14 F.3d 703 (1st Cir. 1994) (standard for evaluating evidence in sufficiency/scope of review)
- United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 758 F.2d 741 (1st Cir. 1985) (avoid meaningless/overbroad statutory construction; all words must be given effect)
- United States v. Angiulo, 497 F.2d 440 (1st Cir. 1974) (pretrial publicity and venue concerns; transfer usually reserved for highly prejudicial publicity)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1985) (general principles of fair trial; not controlling on specific venue issues here)