United States v. Maisonet, 73-1422.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1973
• Docket Number: No. 73-1422.,73-1422.
• Citation: 484 F.2d 1356
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raul MAISONET, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

484 F.2d 1356 (1973)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raul MAISONET, Appellant.

No. 73-1422.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued July 16, 1973.

Decided October 5, 1973.

Daniel C. Kaufman, Springfield, Va., (court-appointed) for appellant.

Paul A. Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty., E. D. Va., on brief) for appellee.

Before CRAVEN, BUTZNER, and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge:

Raul Maisonet was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 876 (1970), which prohibits mailing a letter "containing . . . any threat to injure the person of the addressee." Maisonet's principal assignment of error is the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We affirm because we believe the evidence raised an issue of fact for the determination of the jury.

Maisonet had been sentenced in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to an indeterminate term of up to ten years for carrying a dangerous weapon after having been convicted of a felony. While he was imprisoned at Lorton, Virginia, he sent a letter to the sentencing judge, which, after charging that his sentence was illegal and that the judge was prejudiced against Puerto Ricans, said "I may have to do all my ten (10) years, but if I ever get out of here and nothing happen to me while I am in here, you will never be able to be prejudice and racist against another Puerto Rican like me." The letter was addressed to the judge at his home. The government charges that the quoted language constituted a threat to injure him. Maisonet testified that he did not mean the letter to threaten physical harm to the judge, rather he intended to seek the judge's removal from office. To corroborate his testimony, he showed that he had complained to congressmen and civic organizations about the judge. However, he was unable to show in these communications any specific request for an investigation of the judge or for his removal. He testified he sent the letter to the judge's home so that it would receive the judge's personal attention.

Maisonet concedes that the government presented a prima facie case with respect to the dispatch of the letter. He contends, however, that a judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the government failed to introduce extrinsic evidence to show that he intended a threat to injure the judge. Absent such evidence, he argues, a complaint about official conduct that is susceptible of a meaning other than a threat to injure the official is insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. In support of his position, he relies on United States v. Barcley, 452 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1971). Barcley was convicted of mailing a letter to his court-appointed attorney, in which, after profanely criticizing the attorney, he said, "As soon as I can get this case situated around in the position I want, you are the first s. o. b. that will go; the prosecutor will be the next." Recognizing that the letter fell within the purview of the first amendment, the court directed the entry of a judgment of acquittal. It found the letter to be equally susceptible to two meanings—one threatening, and the other non-threatening. Because the government failed to introduce proof of extraneous circumstances to remove this ambiguity, it ruled that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.

We are not persuaded by Maisonet's argument. Barcley was decided by a divided court. The dissenting opinion is in harmony with Bell v. United States, 185 F.2d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 1950), which sets forth our circuit's rule governing motions for judgments of acquittal:

"When a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is made in a criminal case, the sole duty of the trial judge is to determine whether there is substantial evidence which, taken in the light most favorable to the United States, tends to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The possibility that a jury may have a reasonable doubt upon the evidence as to the guilt of the defendant is not the criterion which determines the action of the trial judge. The decision on that question is for the jury to make and the rule is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial."

Even when the defense is based on a claim of first amendment rights, the rule stated in Bell contains the proper standard for determining whether a case should be submitted to the jury. Whether a letter that is susceptible of more than one meaning—one of which is a threat of physical injury —constitutes a threat must be determined in the light of the context in...