United States v. William White
698 F.3d 1005
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- White was charged with criminal solicitation under 18 U.S.C. § 373 for posts on Overthrow.com that targeted Juror A, the foreperson in Matt Hale’s trial.
- The 2008 Juror A post disclosed Juror A’s personal information and is alleged to have invited violence against Juror A within a white supremacist readership context.
- The case references United States v. Hale (per curiam) where similar solicitation of harm to a juror occurred and influenced subsequent conduct.
- The district court granted White’s Rule 29 motion, finding insufficient evidence and First Amendment protection; this court later reversed for a rational juror to convict.
- On remand, the government presented trial evidence including posts, juror testimony, and expert analysis showing intent and corroborating circumstances; White was convicted, then the district court granted acquittal post-trial, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal.
- The panel ultimately reinstates the conviction and remands for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports conviction beyond a reasonable doubt | White | White | Yes; rational jury could find intent and solicitation |
| Whether the First Amendment protects the solicitation-postings as free speech | White | White | No; solicitation is not protected speech |
| Whether 404(b) evidence was properly admitted to show intent | White | White | Yes; probative and not unduly prejudicial |
| Whether use of an anonymous jury was appropriate and harmless | White | White | Harmful error not shown; discretion was within the district court |
| Whether the district court erred in excluding additional First Amendment jury instructions | White | White | Not reversible; instructions were adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2006) (solicitation context for juror harm in a Hale-related case)
- United States v. White, 610 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2010) (reaffirmed that intent with strongly corroborating circumstances suffices for solicitation conviction)
- United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) (requires strong corroborating circumstances for solicitation intent)
- United States v. Presbitero, 569 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2009) (reaffirmed de novo review for sufficiency of evidence in Rule 29)
- United States v. Moses, 513 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2008) (standards for sufficiency review)