United States v. Dierks, No. 18-2374 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for three counts of transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce based on a series of tweets he directed at United States Senator Joni Ernst. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction where defendant's admission, the threatening content of his tweets, and the warning from the police officer were enough to allow a reasonable jury to find that he intended his tweets as threats or knew they would be viewed that way.
The court also held that the district court should have required both a subjective finding of knowledge or intent and also an objective finding that the communication was threatening. Nevertheless, defendant's tweets were objectively threatening and it was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found defendants guilty absent that error. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err by permitting testimony from an officer about the meaning of the internet slang used in the tweets, and in refusing to admit an exculpatory tweet where it was not contemporaneous enough with his charged tweets.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875(c); while the instructions should have required both a subjective finding of knowledge or intent and also an objective finding that the communication was threatening, the error was harmless because the tweets in issue were objectively threatening and it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found defendant guilty absent the error; no error in permitting testimony from a law enforcement officer about the meaning of the internet slang used in the tweets; no error in refusing to admit what defendant claimed was an exculpatory tweet he sent 18 hours after the tweets in question as it was not contemporaneous enough with the charged tweets.
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.