Summary
This Second Circuit opinion reviews the cyberstalking conviction of Willie Dennis under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B). Dennis appealed on multiple grounds, primarily arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove his electronic communications constituted unprotected "true threats" under the First Amendment, alongside claims regarding jury instructions and trial court rulings. The court held that while the evidence sufficiently supported true threat findings for two counts, it was insufficient for a third count, resulting in a partial reversal. All remaining arguments, including those subject to plain error review, were deemed without merit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Dennis communicated true threats to Eric Cottle (Count Two) under §2261A(2)(B).
- Whether the district court’s jury instruction error was plain error warranting reversal.
- Whether the district court’s evidentiary rulings violated Dennis’s constitutional rights.
Holdings
- The evidence was insufficient; the conviction on Count Two is reversed.
- The error was not plain; the conviction on Counts One and Four is affirmed.
- The rulings were within the district court’s discretion; no violation occurred.
Key quotations
“The evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that Dennis communicated, and intended to communicate, true threats to Bicks and Bostick, which caused severe emotional distress.”
“We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that the communications themselves conveyed, and intended to convey, true threats to Cottle.”
Factual background
Dennis sent thousands of electronic messages to former law‑firm partners, some containing explicit threats of physical harm and threats to their children. The jury found him guilty on all three counts. Evidence for Counts One and Four showed clear threats; evidence for Count Two consisted of a brief series of messages that did not convey a threat of physical violence.
Procedural history
Dennis was convicted on three counts after a jury trial. The district court entered an amended judgment on March 24, 2023. Dennis appealed, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional as applied because the evidence did not prove true threats on Count Two and that jury instructions were erroneous.