U.S. v. Callahan, 81-6091
| Decision Date | 15 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-6091,81-6091 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Vincent CALLAHAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Patrick Doherty, Gross & Doherty, Clearwater, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Stephen M. Crawford, U.S. Atty., Terry A. Zitek, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges, and MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Convicted of mailing a letter threatening the lives of the president-elect and vice president-elect of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 871, Donald Vincent Callahan appeals on the single issue of whether the statements he made in his letter constituted a true threat under the statute.
The statute provides that whoever knowingly and willfully mails a letter containing any threat to kill or cause bodily harm to the president, vice president, president-elect, or vice president-elect shall be fined a maximum of $1,000 or be imprisoned up to a maximum of five years, or both. 1
The letter, signed by Callahan, read:
Dear Mr. Knight:
It is essential that Reagan and Bush are assassinated on Inauguration Day in front of the television cameras.
If you can arrange for me to get into the act, I will be willing to accept the responsibility.
I don't want anymore Protestant Scum in the White House. The separation of Church and State is a sacrosanct privilege to me and all Christians.
The fate of the Christian West hangs in the balance. The forces of the Reformation must be destroyed before there is any possibility of dissolving the threat posed by Jewish Fascism and Communism.
You know where I live. Just call, I will be in Washington in a few hours.
The envelope in which the letter was mailed was addressed to H.S. Knight, Director of the Secret Service, and bore Callahan's name and return address.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict under the objective standard utilized in this circuit. United States v. Rogers, 488 F.2d 512, 514 (5th Cir.1974), rev'd on other grounds, 422 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 2091, 45 L.Ed.2d 1 (1975). To establish a violation of the statute, the government had to prove that the defendant knowingly and willfully uttered the words alleged to constitute the threat, that he understood the meaning of the words to be an apparent threat, and that the defendant mailed them or caused them to be mailed. See United States v. Kirk, 528 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir.1976).
The defendant contends his letter constituted a conditional statement that was nothing more than political hyperbole. He points to the fact that the Secret Service did not respond immediately to the letter as an indication that the agency responsible for the safety of the president-elect and vice president-elect did not perceive the letter as a threat.
The defendant's argument misses the mark. The question is whether there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally made the statement under such circumstances that a reasonable person would construe them as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of the persons named in the statute. United States v. Rogers, 488 F.2d at 514 & n. 3. The government is not required to prove an actual intent to carry out the threat. United States v. Pilkington, 583 F.2d 746 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 948, 99 S.Ct. 1427, 59 L.Ed.2d 637 (1979), citing United States v. Rogers, 488 F.2d 512 (5th Cir.1974).
Callahan's letter is threatening on its face, stating that it is "essential" that the president-elect and vice president-elect be assassinated. He specifies a date, time, and place, and manifests a willingness to accept the consequences of the murders if it can be arranged for him "to get into the act..." He further offers to arrive in Washington, D.C., "in a few hours." When Callahan was arrested, he stated that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Taylor
...specify a "date, time, and place" or method for where and how he intended to carry out his purported threat. Cf. United States v. Callahan , 702 F.2d 964, 966 (11th Cir. 1983). The majority points to nothing which would lead a reasonable listener to conclude that Taylor had considered actin......
-
State v. Carroll
...an intention to inflict bodily harm." United States v. Alaboud, 347 F.3d 1293, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Callahan, 702 F.2d 964, 965 (11th Cir. 1983) ), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Martinez, 800 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Similarly, ......
-
State v. Taylor
...and hyperbole." Id. The specificity of the alleged threat is a consideration in "true threat" analysis. See United States v. Callahan , 702 F.2d 964, 966 (11th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted) (finding that a letter specifying time, date, and place of threatened assassination constituted a tru......
-
Abbott v. State
...Id. In contrast, Kosma's threat included precise information, such as dates and locations, for his assassination. United States v. Callahan, 702 F.2d 964 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983), also provides guidance. Callahan wrote a letter to the Dir......
-
Freedom of speech and true threats.
...see discussion infra Part IV.C. (91.) United States v. Viefhaus, 168 F.3d 392, 396 (10th Cir. 1999). (92.) See United States v. Callahan, 702 F.2d 964, 965 (11th Cir. 1983); Lucero v. Trosch, 928 F. Supp. 1124, 1129 (S.D. Ala. 1996). (93.) See United States v. Adams, 73 F. Supp. 2d 2, 3 (D.......
-
Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District: the Eighth Circuit Jeopardizes an Individual's Protected Speech by Adhering to the Incorrect Standard in Distinguishing a True Threat from Protected Speech
...the statement has a reasonable tendency to create fear that the speaker will carry out the threat); and United States v. Callahan, 702 F.2d 964, 965 (11th Cir. 1983) (stating a communication is a threat under 18 U.S.C. § 871 if a reasonable person would construe the statement as a serious e......