United States v. Alkhabaz

104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Alkhabaz (D), a.k.a. Jake Baker and Arthur Gonda exchanged e-mail messages over the Internet, the content of which expressed a sexual interest in violence against women and girls. D sent and received messages through a computer in Ann Arbor, Michigan, while Gonda--whose true identity and whereabouts are still unknown--used a computer in Ontario, Canada. D had posted a number of fictional stories to 'alt.sex.stories,' a popular interactive Usenet newsgroup. Using such shorthand references as 'B&D,' 'snuff,' 'pedo,' 'mf,' and 'nc,' D's fictional stories generally involved the abduction, rape, torture, mutilation, and murder of women and young girls. On January 9, D posted a story describing the torture, rape, and murder of a young woman who shared the name of one of D's classmates at the University of Michigan. D was arrested and appeared before a United States Magistrate Judge on a criminal complaint alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which prohibits interstate communications containing threats to kidnap or injure another person. P made the complaint based on an FBI agent's affidavit, which cited language from the story involving Baker's classmate. D was detained as a danger to the community, and a United States District Court affirmed his detention. A federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment charging D with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). On March 15, 1995, citing several e-mail messages between Gonda and D, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment, charging D and Gonda with five counts of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The e-mail messages supporting the superseding indictment were not available in any publicly accessible portion of the Internet. D filed a Motion to Quash Indictment, and the district court dismissed the indictment reasoning that the e-mail messages sent and received did not constitute 'true threats' under the First Amendment and, as such, were protected speech. P argues that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment are 'true threats' and, as such, do not implicate First Amendment free speech protections.