United States v. Ivers, No. 19-1563 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Ivers filed a lawsuit against a life insurance company. Judge Wright granted the company summary judgment on all but one claim. Ivers mailed Judge Wright a packet of court-related materials on which Ivers had written statements such as “I want my fucking money ” and “I am becoming a very dangerous person!!!” Before a scheduled bench trial, Ivers sent another letter. Ivers’s communications were forwarded to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). Ivers had previously threatened a state court judge and had been convicted of stalking; he was on probation. Deputy Hattervig spoke with Ivers, who lacked remorse. The USMS provided increased security at the trial. After judgment was entered in favor of the company, Ivers sent letters asserting that Judge Wright was biased and called the Chief Judge’s chambers, describing himself as a “walking bomb.” In interviews with USMS deputies, Ivers refused to retract his statements, remained visibly angry, and confirmed that he remained a “ticking time bomb.”
The EIghth CIrcuit affirmed Ivers’ convictions for threatening to murder a federal judge, 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(B), and interstate transmission of a threat to injure the person of another, 18 U.S.C. 875(c), and his 18-month sentence. The court rejected arguments that Ivers' statements were privileged, that there was insufficient evidence suggesting that he made a true threat of harm, that the court erred in instructing the jury, and that cumulative errors deprived him of a fair trial.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Melloy, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The threat statements defendant made to attorneys assigned to assist him in a pro se referral program for civil litigation were not protected by the attorney-client privilege as threats to commit violent acts against the alleged victims are not communications made in order to obtain legal advice; the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant made a true threat of future violence against the federal judge who had ruled in his civil suit; no error in the instructions given on counts of threatening to murder a federal judge or interstate transmission of a threat to injure - see U.S. v. Wynn, 827 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2016);cumulative error argument rejected.
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.