William A. White is charged with five counts of the federal
crime of “communicating an interstate threat to kidnap or injure with intent to
extort, in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 875(b).” U.S. v.
White, 2014 WL 4450097 (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2014).
The U.S. District Court Judge
who has the case begins this opinion by explaining exactly what White is
charged with, and why:
Count One is based on a threatening
email sent from the email address nslf_helsterskelter@hotmail.com on May 19,
2012, to the prosecutor, judge, and FBI agent assigned to a state court case
against fourteen members of the American Front organization; Count Two is based
on the Count One email being sent on May 20, 2012, to other email addresses and
media outlets; Count Three is based on a different threatening email allegedly
sent by Defendant on May 20, 2012, to a company owned by a family member of the
state court prosecutor; Count Four is based on an attempted post of the Count
One threat on May 20, 2012, in the comments section following an article
regarding the American Front on the website for the Southern Poverty Law
Center; and Count Five is based on a May 20, 2012, post of the same threat in
the comments section following an article regarding the American Front on the
website for the Anti–Defamation League. . . .
U.S. v. White, supra.
In this opinion, the judge is ruling on the prosecution’s “Notice
of Intention to Introduce Evidence of Prior Acts of the Defendant” and on the “Motion in Limine Stating Objections to Use of Prior Act Evidence” White filed in
opposition to the government’s filing. U.S.
v. White, supra. The government’s
motion sought permission to introduce six categories of “prior act” evidence
but this post only examines three of the categories, because they more directly
involve the use of cyberspace than the others.
The judge also prefaced his analysis of the issues raised by
the government’s notice and White’s motion by outlining the legal issues
involved in both:
The issues raised involve application of Rules
403 and 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 403 provides
that `[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the
issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence.’
Rule 404 largely prohibits the use
at trial of character evidence or evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts. It
provides that `[e]vidence of a person's character or character trait is not
admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance
with the character or trait.’ Fed.R.Evid. 404(a)(1). Further, `[e]vidence of a
crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in
order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with
the character.’ Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(1).
However, evidence of a crime, wrong, or
other act `is admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of
mistake, or lack of accident.’ Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(2).
U.S. v. White, supra.
Here, the government wanted to introduce evidence of White’s
Facebook posts regarding the George
Zimmerman case and a threat that was emailed to state court Judge Kenneth
Lester -- who presided over the Zimmerman case -- on June 1, 2012, from email
address redpawn1111@hotmail.com. [White’s] Facebook remarks regarding the
Zimmerman case included, `You will find the word pig written in blood on the
wall.’ . . . The email to Judge Lester started with `DIG PIGS,’ referred to
Judge Lester as a `PIG JUDGE,’ referred to a `BLACK BUS’ coming to Judge Lester's
house, and referred to `PIGLETS.’ . . .
U.S. v. White, supra.
The prosecutors argued that Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules
of Evidence did not
apply to this evidence because it is
inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses; because it involves the
context, motive, and set up of the charged offense; because it is linked in
time and circumstance to the charged offense; and because `it is an integral
part of the story of the crime and is necessary to complete the story of the
offense.’ . . .
The Government contends the email
threat to Judge Lester bears numerous resemblances to the emails that form the
basis of the charges in this case. The origin of the IP address of the email
appeared to be anonymized, as in the charged offenses. The Government contends
that evidence that [White] was behind the threat to Judge Lester is probative of
the issue of whether [he] was behind the threats at issue in the Indictment.
The Government further contends that even if this evidence is 404(b) evidence,
it is admissible because it is presented solely for the purpose of proving the
identity of [White] as the sender of the emails referenced in the Indictment.
[White] responds that the Facebook
posts about the Zimmerman case are not relevant and that any relevance is
outweighed by confusion of the issues and the danger of unfair prejudice to [him].
[He] notes that the email to Judge Lester was sent from a different email
address than the one used to send the threats in this case. [White] states that
`[w]hile an inference can be drawn that the same person(s) may be sending the
emails, there is nothing but confusion of issues and unfair prejudice to the
Defendant that can be accomplished by interjecting into this trial evidence
involving George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin.’
U.S. v. White, supra.
The judge resolved this dispute by holding that evidence of
White’s Facebook post that
`You will find the word pig written in
blood on the wall’ is relevant and admissible in this case. On the other hand,
evidence of the email sent to Judge Kenneth Lester from the email address redpawn1111@hotmail.com -- which is
not the same email address from which the emails at issue in the charges in
this case -- will not be permitted. Such evidence is not relevant to
whether [White] committed the crimes with which he is charged in this Court.
U.S. v. White, supra.
Next, the judge took up the prosecution’s intention to
introduce evidence of
May 28, 2012 threats made to Roanoke
Times reporter Daniel Casey, who had written articles disparaging [White].
On that date, attempts were made to post threats on the Roanoke Times website,
but the Roanoke Times blocked such posting.
At 1:22 a.m. that day, username
`Charlie Fin Manson’ -- using the email address nslf_ helterskelter@hotmail.com and an anonymized IP address -- attempted to
post a comment regarding Casey's column regarding [White]; the column was
titled `William White on trial: low-rent, lowbrow lowlife.’ . . . That comment
used language similar to the emails involved in the charges in this case.
Another posting attempt was made by
username `Charlie Fucking Manson’ using the email address nslf_helterskelter@hotmail.com
at 9:54 a.m. that day; that post also
contained similar language. Another post was attempted by username `Son of Sam’
using the email address nslf_helterskelter@hotmail.com
at 9:49 p.m. that day.
The Government notes that these threats
to Casey were made using the email address nslf_helterskelter@hotmail.com
and that the language used is similar to
that in the emails in this case. The Government contends that `evidence that [White]
was [he] was responsible for the charged conduct’ and is part of the facts
associated with use of the email address nslf_helterskelter@hotmail.com.
The Government also asserts that these threats are closely linked in both time
and circumstances.
[White] responds that `[t]he similarity
in the language tends to prove that the person(s) using the helter-skelter
account sent the messages, but that similarity in no way tends to prove that [he]
is the person or one of the people using the helter-skelter account.’ . . .
[White] contends that the evidence is unfairly prejudicial.
U.S. v. White, supra.
The judge held that “[i]n light of the connection between
Casey and [White] and use of the helterskelter email, these emails are
admissible.” U.S. v. White, supra.
Next, the judge took up the prosecution’s seeking permission
to introduce
evidence of [White’s] Facebook posts
regarding Charles Manson and the murders perpetrated by Manson's followers. The
Government argues that these posts are highly probative because the threats
charged in the Indictment `are rife with references to the Manson crimes.’ . .
. The Government further notes that the
email address nslf_helterskelter@hotmail.com is itself `a reference to Manson's fascination with the Beatles song “Helter Skelter” as well as Manson's
interpretation of the song as a call to murder.’ . . .
[White] acknowledges that the helter
skelter email account and messages referencing the word pig written in blood `are
logically associated with Charles Manson.’ . . . [White] objects, however, that
posts to [his] page `by unknown people’ have limited probative value and argues
that use of such evidence must be accompanied by an appropriate limiting
instruction. . . .
U.S. v. White, supra.
The judge held that
[t]o the extent the Government seeks to
introduce evidence of Charles Manson-related Facebook posts made by [White] himself,
such introduction will be permitted. To the extent the Government seeks to
introduce evidence of such posts made by others on [his] Facebook page, the
Court reserves ruling until the context of each such post can be specifically
assessed.
U.S. v. White, supra.
No comments:
Post a Comment