Manifesto in aborted Super Bowl rampage was not criminal, court rules
A federal appeals court Monday reversed the conviction of a man who mailed copies of an angry 鈥渕anifesto鈥� to news organizations moments before driving to the 2008 Super Bowl with a loaded assault rifle to kill as many people as possible.
The man, Kurt Havelock, never squeezed off a single round outside Super Bowl XLII in Glendale, Ariz. He had a change of heart. Instead, he went to the police and confessed his entire aborted plan.
Local police did not charge him with a crime, since he鈥檇 only contemplated the massacre.
But federal agents retrieved copies of his mailed manifesto and charged Mr. Havelock with using the US Postal Service to mail threatening letters.
He was convicted at trial and sentenced to a year in prison.
On Monday, a panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco voted 2 to 1 to reverse Havelock鈥檚 conviction and directed a federal judge to issue a judgment of acquittal.
The court said the federal statute requires that any threatening communication be addressed to a specific person. Since Havelock鈥檚 鈥渕anifesto鈥� was addressed only generally to organizations or businesses, the charges against him must be dismissed, the appeals court said.
Federal prosecutors had argued for a broad interpretation of the federal law. In the package Havelock sent to news organizations, he wrote: 鈥淚t will be swift and bloody. I will sacrifice your children upon the altar of your excess.鈥�
He also wrote: 鈥淚 will slay your children. I will shed the blood of the innocent.鈥�
The question in the appeal was whether these statements were specific enough to trigger criminal liability for Havelock. While the statements were threatening in a general way, they were apparently not directed at any particular named parent.
Havelock鈥檚 lawyer argued that his manifesto and other self-described 鈥渞andom blatherings鈥� weren鈥檛 threats at all, they were Havelock鈥檚 attempt at an explanation for what he expected would become his "suicide by cop."
The relevant statute says in part: 鈥淲hoever knowingly so deposits 鈥� any communication 鈥� addressed to any other person and containing 鈥� any threat to injure the person of the addressee or of another 鈥� shall be imprisoned not more than five years.鈥�
鈥淎 few of Havelock鈥檚 statements appeared to be addressed to whoever read them: e.g., 'I will slay your children,' " Judge William Canby wrote for the court.
But, he added, 鈥淚t is impossible to determine (and is highly unlikely) that Havelock, in the quoted phrase, was referring to any particular person whose children he was going to slay.鈥�
In a dissent, Judge Susan Graber said Congress did not intend for the law to be read so narrowly.
鈥淕iven this breadth of coverage it is unlikely that Congress intended to differentiate 鈥� between a death threat sent expressly and directly to a living person and one mailed to a corporation that employs that person,鈥� she wrote. 鈥淎fter all, both threats have exactly the same ill effect.鈥�
Judge Graber added: 鈥淯nder the majority鈥檚 interpretation, the statute would not apply to an individual who mailed a letter bearing on its outside the address, 鈥楳om and Pop Grocery, Inc鈥︹�� and containing inside the warning, 鈥楾omorrow I will come and shoot every one of you dead.鈥� "
The judge said the majority opinion would produce absurd results. Graber said the law, as interpreted by the majority, 鈥渨ould not prohibit 鈥� someone鈥檚 mailing a letter to 鈥楾he Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals鈥� with the threat, 鈥業 will hunt down and take vengeance on the judges responsible for today鈥檚 decision.鈥� "
Judge Canby said there are numerous other statutes prohibiting threats. 鈥淭here is no need to stretch [this statute] beyond the limits of its language to reach conduct better dealt with by other statutes,鈥� he said.
