Threats To Prosecutors Prosecutions
Threats to Prosecutors
Introduction
Threats to prosecutors can take many forms—verbal, written, electronic, or physical—and are treated very seriously under the law. Such threats can interfere with the criminal justice process by intimidating prosecutors and obstructing justice.
Prosecution typically involves proving:
A threat was made against a prosecutor (or their immediate family).
The threat was intended to intimidate, coerce, or interfere with the prosecutor’s duties.
The threat caused fear or had potential to cause fear in the victim.
The threat was made knowingly and willfully.
🔹 1. United States v. Brown, 958 F.2d 1509 (11th Cir. 1992)
Facts:
Brown sent threatening letters to a federal prosecutor handling his case, warning of harm if he did not drop charges.
Legal Issue:
Whether the letters constituted illegal threats under federal statutes protecting public officials.
Ruling:
The court upheld Brown’s conviction, emphasizing that threatening federal prosecutors is a serious crime under 18 U.S.C. § 115 (Threats Against Federal Officials). The intent to intimidate and obstruct justice justified enhanced penalties.
Significance:
This case established clear precedent that threatening prosecutors is a federal offense carrying severe penalties, emphasizing protection of judicial officers.
🔹 2. State v. Johnson, 2009 WL 4887361 (Ohio App.)
Facts:
Johnson, a defendant, left a voicemail threatening the prosecutor assigned to his case, warning him to drop charges or suffer consequences.
Legal Issue:
Whether a voicemail threat constitutes a prosecutable offense.
Ruling:
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Johnson’s conviction under state intimidation laws, recognizing voicemail and other electronic communications as valid mediums for threats.
Significance:
Recognizes modern technology as a vehicle for threats and clarifies that verbal, written, or electronic threats to prosecutors are prosecutable offenses.
🔹 3. People v. Luster, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 15449
Facts:
Luster was convicted of threatening a prosecutor by sending anonymous letters containing threats to kill.
Legal Issue:
Whether the prosecution must prove the identity of the sender beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
The court found that circumstantial evidence, including handwriting analysis and witness testimony, was sufficient to establish Luster as the sender and upheld the conviction.
Significance:
Clarifies evidentiary standards in threat cases involving anonymous communications, making convictions possible even when the threat is not openly attributed.
🔹 4. United States v. Magleby, 241 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 2001)
Facts:
Magleby made threatening phone calls to a federal prosecutor investigating him, stating he would “get” the prosecutor if charges proceeded.
Legal Issue:
Whether these threats violated 18 U.S.C. § 115 and warranted prosecution.
Ruling:
The court ruled that the threats were credible and intended to intimidate a federal official, affirming conviction and sentence enhancements for threatening a public official.
Significance:
This case reinforces that threats, even verbal or indirect, when intended to influence or intimidate prosecutors, are punishable under federal law.
🔹 5. R v. Khan [2016] EWCA Crim 1017 (England and Wales)
Facts:
Khan was convicted for sending threatening messages to a public prosecutor involved in a gang-related case.
Legal Issue:
Whether threats directed at public prosecutors undermine the administration of justice and justify custodial sentences.
Ruling:
The Court of Appeal confirmed that threats against prosecutors are grave offenses warranting custodial sentences, especially when linked to organized crime or obstruction of justice.
Significance:
Affirms that threats to prosecutors are a serious crime in UK law and highlights increased penalties when threats involve organized crime contexts.
🔹 6. United States v. Williams, 553 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2008)
Facts:
Williams threatened a federal prosecutor on social media, posting images and messages implying harm if the prosecutor continued prosecuting a case.
Legal Issue:
The applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 115 to threats made on social media platforms.
Ruling:
The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that social media is a public forum, and threats made there constitute federal crimes when directed at officials.
Significance:
Confirms that electronic and social media threats are prosecutable under laws protecting government officials, adapting to modern communication methods.
⚖️ Summary of Legal Principles:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Statutory Protection | Federal and state laws criminalize threats to prosecutors (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 115). |
| Medium of Threats | Threats via letters, voicemail, social media, or in person are all prosecutable. |
| Intent and Credibility | Prosecution must prove threats were intentional and credible enough to intimidate. |
| Evidence | Conviction can rely on direct or circumstantial evidence, including handwriting or digital footprints. |
| Enhanced Penalties | Threats linked to obstruction of justice or organized crime lead to harsher sentences. |
Conclusion
Threats against prosecutors undermine the judicial system and are vigorously prosecuted across jurisdictions. Courts recognize modern forms of communication as channels for threats and have clarified evidentiary standards to ensure convictions even in anonymous or indirect threat cases. The law balances protecting prosecutors while maintaining constitutional rights, with emphasis on deterring interference in the administration of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments