U.S. v. Saunders

Decision Date02 February 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-1980,98-1980
Citation166 F.3d 907,1999 WL 44345
Parties51 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 632 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter SAUNDERS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Madeleine S. Murphy (submitted), Office of the United States Attorney, Criminal Division, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Terence F. MacCarthy (submitted), Office of the Federal Defender Program, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

Peter Saunders, an inmate at Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet, Illinois, sent a threatening letter to Judge Blanche Manning, a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois; the next day, Mr. Saunders sent her an explosive device. Mr. Saunders admitted to an FBI agent that he had sent the letter and the bomb, and he even explained how he had obtained the components of the bomb. A jury found Mr. Saunders guilty of interfering with a federal officer in the execution of her duties, unlawful manufacture of a firearm, attempting to kill an officer or employee of the United States, and use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. Mr. Saunders now appeals his convictions. For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I BACKGROUND
A. Facts

On October 30, 1995, Judge Blanche Manning's secretary opened a letter addressed to Judge Manning. 1 The return address named The following day, October 31, 1995, as a Court Security Officer was screening a package addressed to Judge Manning in an X-ray machine in the United States Courthouse in Chicago, Illinois, he observed what appeared to be a D-sized battery, with two wires hooked to the battery at one end and a cylindrical tube at the other end, and two wires leading to a section of the package that was not visible. The courthouse area was sealed off, and the Court Security Officer called the Chicago bomb squad.

Peter Saunders at the Stateville Correctional Center. This letter was turned over to a United States Deputy Marshal and submitted to the FBI.

Detective Martin Gavin, an explosives technician with the Chicago Police Department, X-rayed the package again. Because the package had been handled through the mail, Detective Gavin was not concerned about detonation while handling the package. Based upon the X-ray and the detective's experience, Detective Gavin determined that the package was a victim-actuated device that would not detonate unless someone opened the package. Detective Gavin neutralized the device under safe conditions.

The debris of the disrupted device consisted of the outside wrapping of the package, a hollowed-out book, some tape, various wires, a battery and a Magic Marker vial containing match heads. Detective Gavin determined that the device was in fact a bomb, but was uncertain if the device actually would have detonated because at that time he was unsure if the battery was live. However, the battery was later tested and determined to be a live battery. Thus, Detective Gavin determined that the device was not a hoax and that the device would have exploded if opened.

An FBI agent interviewed Mr. Saunders at Stateville Correctional Center. Mr. Saunders explained that Judge Manning, as an Illinois Appellate Court judge, had affirmed his state criminal conviction and, as a federal judge, dismissed as frivolous Mr. Saunders' civil suit alleging that the State of Illinois was providing inadequate medical care to him. He stated that the disposition of his appeal and his civil suit made him furious with Judge Manning and that he had sent the letter and the bomb to Judge Manning. Mr. Saunders explained how he had obtained the components of the device and stated that he had hoped that the device would kill or injure Judge Manning. He also explained that he had been worried that someone other than Judge Manning might open the package and be injured. A review of the National Firearms Registry revealed that no weapons or devices had been registered by Mr. Saunders.

B. Proceedings in the District Court

Prior to trial, Mr. Saunders moved in limine to redact the threatening letter at issue by removing offensive language and references to a prior act of violence, Mr. Saunders' stabbing a correctional officer. The district court denied Mr. Saunders' motion. 2

The government also filed a motion in limine to prevent Mr. Saunders' cross-examination of Agent Robert Heckman regarding findings of an internal Department of Justice investigation of the FBI Laboratory. Agent Heckman, an explosives and hazardous devices examiner with the FBI laboratory materials and devices unit, was the government's expert witness on explosives and hazardous devices. Mr. Saunders was not permitted to cross-examine Agent Heckman concerning findings made by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General following its investigation of the FBI Laboratory. Mr. Saunders maintained that the report would demonstrate that Mr. Heckman was biased in favor of the government and lacked expertise. The district court ruled that the use of the internal Office of Inspector General report to cross-examine the agent violated Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, that the report's probative value was outweighed by its danger of undue prejudice, and that the report did not address Agent Heckman's performance in Mr. Saunders' case.

At trial, Agent Heckman testified that he had examined the X-ray of the device and the debris collected from the disruption of the device. He determined that all of the components necessary to create a destructive device were present in the X-ray and debris and that, if properly assembled and initiated, the device could explode and cause injury or death. The agent explained to the jury how the bomb operated and was constructed; according to him, the explosion would probably be more than that of a firecracker, but would not be very powerful. However, he noted that a firecracker can blow off a human hand and is potentially deadly. Using a video tape, Agent Heckman presented a device he constructed using components similar to those in Mr. Saunders' device and demonstrated the explosion it caused. Agent Heckman did not duplicate the exact device because he considered the fusing system in Mr. Saunders' bomb to be too dangerous and did not want to expose himself to possible injury or death. The one change to the device did not change the nature of the resulting explosion.

On October 31, 1997, Peter Saunders was found guilty by a jury of interfering with a federal officer in the execution of her duties, see 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B); unlawful manufacture of a firearm, see 26 U.S.C. § 5861(f); attempting to kill an officer or employee of the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 1114; and use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The district court denied Mr. Saunders' post-trial motion to vacate the verdict and order a new trial. The court sentenced Mr. Saunders to a term of imprisonment of 622 months to be served consecutively to his imprisonment on his state sentence and five years of supervised release. The court also ordered Mr. Saunders to pay a special assessment of $200 and a fine of $17,500.

II DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Saunders raises three issues. He contends (1) that the district court improperly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial because the government failed to provide sufficient evidence from which a jury could find Mr. Saunders guilty as charged, (2) that the district court abused its discretion in denying Mr. Saunders' motion to redact portions of Mr. Saunders' letter to Judge Manning, and (3) that the district court abused its discretion by limiting the cross-examination of Agent Heckman. We shall address each of these contentions in turn.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Mr. Saunders first asserts that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that he committed the four crimes of which he was convicted. We begin our review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Mr. Saunders' convictions with the well-settled standard that we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, making all reasonable inferences in its favor, and will affirm the conviction as long as any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. O'Brien, 119 F.3d 523, 532 (7th Cir.1997). A court of appeals may reverse only when the "record is devoid of any evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which a jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Garcia, 35 F.3d 1125, 1128 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Gutierrez, 978 F.2d 1463, 1468-69 (7th Cir.1992)). Thus, Mr. Saunders faces an uphill battle in his sufficiency of the evidence challenge. We shall review Mr. Saunders' four convictions under this standard of review.

1.

Count One charged Mr. Saunders with threatening to kill Judge Manning on account of her official duties. See 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). 3 Mr. Saunders submits that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that he threatened Judge Manning with the intent to interfere with the Judge's execution of her official duties. He also argues that the letter and device were used merely as a means of drawing attention to his lack of medical care provided by the Illinois State prison system. Mr. Saunders asserts that Judge Manning was merely a conduit through which Mr. Saunders could obtain the necessary attention to his cause.

In order to meet its burden on Count One, the government was required to show that Mr. Saunders knowingly threatened to kill Judge Manning and that he made the threat with the "intent to impede,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • United States v. Musgrove
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • September 16, 2011
    ...determining whether a statement constitutes true threat is question which should be left to the trier of fact. See United States v. Saunders, 166 F.3d 907, 912 (7th Cir.1999) (holding that “whether the statement [contained in the defendant's letter to Judge Manning] constitutes a threat was......
  • People v. Bona
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 10, 2018
    ...courts of appeals and concluding that the objective-speaker test continued to be good law post-Black ); accord United States v. Saunders , 166 F.3d 907, 913 n.6 (7th Cir. 1999).3 The Court left open the possibility, but declined to rule, that recklessness would also satisfy the mental-state......
  • State v. Johnston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • January 26, 2006
    ...Seventh Circuit has expressly stated that its test in Khorrami, which we have adopted, is a speaker-based test. In United States v. Saunders, 166 F.3d 907, 913 (7th Cir.1999), for example, the court quoted the standard from Khorrami and explained that "[t]his objective standard presented in......
  • U.S. v. Clark
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • September 15, 2011
    ...States v. Recendiz, 557 F.3d 511, 530 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Smith, 308 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Saunders, 166 F.3d 907, 918–19 (7th Cir.1999). Because the jury in this case heard plenty about McCormick's motives and biases, more than enough to make a critica......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 books & journal articles
  • Argumentative Questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • July 31, 2015
    ...his own witness, unless that witness has executed a sudden about-face during trial by testifying differently than was 1 U.S. v. Saunders , 166 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. Ill 1999); State v. Bettencourt, 723 A.2d 1101 (RI. 1999); People v. Prevo, 235 Ill.Dec. 950, 706 N.E.2d 505, 302 Ill.App.3d 1038......
  • Argumentative Questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2017 Testimonial evidence
    • July 31, 2017
    ...The rule numbers match those of the federal rules. Significant variations are noted in pertinent chapters. ENDNOTES 1 U.S. v. Saunders , 166 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. Ill 1999); State v. Bettencourt, 723 A.2d 1101 (RI. 1999); People v. Prevo, 235 Ill.Dec. 950, 706 N.E.2d 505, 302 Ill.App.3d 1038 (......
  • Argumentative Questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2014 Part I - Testimonial Evidence
    • July 31, 2014
    ...examination, it is rarely proper for a lawyer to attack his own witness, unless that witness has executed a sudden 1 U.S. v. Saunders , 166 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. Ill 1999); State v. Bettencourt, 723 A.2d 1101 (RI. 1999); People v. Prevo, 235 Ill.Dec. 950, 706 N.E.2d 505, 302 Ill.App.3d 1038 (1......
  • Argumentative questions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part I. Testimonial Evidence
    • May 1, 2022
    ...Ariz. 546, 14 Arizona Cases Digest 15, 16 Arizona Cases Digest 18, 462 P.3d 1051 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2020). U.S. v. Saunders , 166 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. Ill 1999); State v. Bettencourt, 723 A.2d 1101 (RI. 1999); People v. Prevo, 235 Ill.Dec. 950, 706 N.E.2d 505, 302 Ill.App.3d 1038 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT