United States v. Clemens, No. 12-1149 (1st Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sending threats to injure another across state lines. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court gave incorrect jury instructions on the meaning of the term "threat," that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that the district court had erred in denying his pre-trial motion to dismiss his indictment. Specifically, Defendant argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Virginia v. Black required that the jury use a subjective test of his intent and that it was insufficient to measure his intent by reference to an objectively reasonable person. On plain error review, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) absent further clarification from the Supreme Court, there was no basis to depart from this circuit's law that an objective test of a defendant's intent is used from the defendant's vantage point; and (2) even if a subjective specific intent instruction had been given, the jury would have, on these facts, found such intent.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 16, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.