81 F. Supp. 3d 85
D.D.C.2015Background
- Defendant Jeff H. Williamson was convicted by a jury of threatening to assault and murder FBI Special Agent Brian Schmitt with intent to retaliate for Schmitt’s performance of official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B).
- The charged threat arose from an obscene, explicit 911 voicemail left June 19, 2014, in which Williamson named Agent Schmitt, referenced his websites, and said he would shoot Schmitt in the head.
- Evidence showed Williamson had a history of posting websites (e.g., dojfbi.webs.com) alleging misconduct by Schmitt and others and had left multiple earlier voicemails (June 2, 2014) and a June 9, 2014 phone call to the Denver FBI office threatening to "hunt" and kill Schmitt while citing those websites.
- The government introduced the 2014 voicemails/call, the 911 recording, the Denver citations issued in 2005–2006 (on which Schmitt was the complaining witness), and a 2011 letter from Williamson accusing Schmitt of issuing the tickets in retaliation.
- Williamson conceded making the 911 call but argued at trial (and in post-trial filings) that his threats related to alleged ongoing stalking and harassment by Schmitt and others after 2005, not to Schmitt’s prior official acts in Denver; he introduced no evidence proving that alleged broader stalking.
- After trial (Dec. 2014) Judge Collyer denied Williamson’s Rule 29 motions (renewed at close of government case and after trial) and denied his post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial (Feb. 28, 2015).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Williamson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to sustain § 115 conviction | Evidence (911 call, earlier voicemails, June 9 call, website linking tickets, Denver citations showing Schmitt as complaining witness, 2011 letter) supports intent to retaliate for Schmitt’s official acts | Threat lacked requisite retaliatory intent tied to Schmitt’s official duties; threats stemmed from alleged later stalking, not the 2005–2006 tickets | Denied acquittal: a reasonable juror could infer Williamson intended to retaliate for Schmitt’s official acts (tickets) |
| Whether statements demonstrate nexus to official duty (retaliation "on account of" performance of duties) | Website and communications repeatedly tied grievances to the Denver tickets and identified Schmitt in his official role; jurors could infer motive was retaliation for those official acts | Claimed motive related to alleged prolonged harassment and stalking unrelated to the Denver investigation; no trial evidence supported that broader theory | Court held evidence sufficiently tied threats to Schmitt’s official role regarding the Denver tickets; jury crediting government reasonable |
| Motion for new trial based on alleged errors and voluminous pretrial motions | N/A (government opposed) | Cites ~120 prior motions and various rulings as grounds for unfairness and need for new trial | Denied: Williamson failed to show substantial error affecting substantial rights; disagreements with rulings more appropriate for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wahl, 290 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (standard for upholding conviction: any rational trier of fact could find essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- United States v. Weisz, 718 F.2d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (review must view evidence in light most favorable to government; acquittal only when no evidence on which reasonable juror could convict)
- United States v. Battle, 613 F.3d 258 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (jury entitled to determine credibility and draw justifiable inferences)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (standard for assessing whether error had substantial influence; harmless error inquiry)