United States v. Thomason, No. 19-2537 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for interstate stalking under 18 U.S.C. 2261A(1). The court concluded that the district court did not err in considering writings found in defendant's car in evaluating the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to provide just punishment, and to protect the public. In this case, the writings were evidence of defendant's intent to commit the charged offense and tended to show that he presented a danger to the victim and the community, and there was no First Amendment violation.
The court also concluded that the prosecution did not engage in misconduct when it referred to defendant by masculine pronouns at sentencing after he asked to be referred to by gender-neutral pronouns. The court explained that defendant cites no authority for the proposition that litigants and courts must refer to defendants by their preferred pronouns, and the only cited authority is to the contrary. Furthermore, there is no showing that the use of pronouns affected the outcome of the proceeding. In regard to defendant's contention that the government disregarded his diagnosis of gender dysphoria, there was no prosecutorial misconduct. The record is clear that the district court sentenced defendant based on his conduct, not due to his gender or gender identity. The court further concluded that the government did not breach defendant's plea agreement by seeking restitution under both the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act and the Violence Against Women Act; the interstate stalking statute is not an unconstitutional overreach of the federal legislature; the court declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance claim; and the judge did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for recusal.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Shepherd, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In sentencing defendant after his conviction for interstate stalking, the district court did not err in considering writings found in defendant's car as they were evidence of his intent to commit the crime and tended to show he presented a danger to the victim and the community, and their consideration did not violate defendant's First Amendment rights; the prosecution did not engage in misconduct when it referred to defendant by masculine pronouns at sentencing after he asked to be referred to by gender-neutral pronouns as there is no authority for the proposition that counsel and the courts must refer to defendants by their preferred pronouns and there is no showing that the use of the masculine pronoun affected the outcome of the sentencing proceeding; further, the district court sentenced defendant based on the conduct in the case rather than gender or gender identity; the government did not breach the plea agreement by seeking restitution under both the MVRA and the Violence Against Women Act; the interstate stalking statute is constitutional; the court would not consider claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal; the trial judge did not err in denying defendant's recusal motion.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 5, 2021.
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.