United States v. Houston, No. 14-5295 (6th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseHouston participated in a shoot-out that caused two deaths. Facing first-degree and felony murder charges, Houston obtained the services of attorney Logan. To secure payment, Houston’s father executed a deed of trust on the family property. The first trial ended in a mistrial, the second in acquittal. Houston did not pay his fees. Logan foreclosed on part of the Houston property. Soon, Houston was back in jail awaiting trial on a firearms offense. Houston heard that Logan had visited the property. As overheard by a Blount County Sheriff’s Office official, Houston went into “a complete rage” and talked about “killing them all.” The next day, Houston placed a phone call to his girlfriend and said: I’ll kill that motherf[***]er [Logan] when I get out. Hey, I ain’t kidding! … The only thing [Logan]’s gonna get from me is a f[***]ing bullet! “At his trial for transmitting a threat in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. 875(c), the judge, applying then-governing precedent, instructed the jury that Houston’s statement was a “true threat” if a “reasonable person hearing the statement would understand it as a serious expression of intent to inflict injury.” Houston was convicted. In 2015, the Supreme Court reversed a conviction under the same statute premised on a nearly identical jury instruction. The Sixth Circuit reversed.
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.