Reaffirmation of Mens Rea Requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) in True Threat Prosecutions

Introduction

In United States v. Bedell, No. 24-1783 (2d Cir. June 2, 2025), the Second Circuit addressed an appeal by Jesse Bedell following his conviction for transmitting interstate communications containing threats to injure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). After a jury trial in the Northern District of New York, Bedell was found guilty on two counts arising from voicemails he left for a prospective employer when denied a job due to a prior conviction. He challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his intent and the “true threat” element, and (2) the district court’s jury instructions on mens rea and the assessment of intent. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction by summary order, reinforcing the subjective and objective components required under § 875(c) and upholding the use of standard pattern jury instructions.

Summary of the Judgment

The court considered two main issues on appeal:

Sufficiency of the Evidence: Applying de novo review, the court determined that recordings of Bedell’s voicemails—threatening to “blow up” and “burn” the plant and kill the recruiter—along with his admissions to police and testimony, amply supported that he acted knowingly and intentionally. The objective “true threat” standard was satisfied because a reasonable recipient familiar with the context (a 24/7 factory employing workers in the threatened plant) would interpret the messages as threats of bodily injury.
Jury Instructions: Bedell argued that the district court misstated the mens rea requirement by failing to emphasize Elonis’s rejection of negligence, and that it improperly directed the jury to rely on the voicemails to infer intent. The appellate court found that the instructions explicitly required that “accident, mistake, or negligence” would not suffice and accurately tracked model federal instructions. The guidance on inferring intent from surrounding circumstances likewise mirrored standard patterns. No legal error or prejudice was found.

The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction in all respects.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Capers, 20 F.4th 105 (2d Cir. 2021): Established the heavy burden on defendants challenging evidence sufficiency and the standard for de novo review.
United States v. Krivoi, 80 F.4th 142 (2d Cir. 2023): Clarified that a verdict must stand if any rational fact‐finder could have found each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015): Held that § 875(c) requires proof that the defendant transmitted a communication “for the purpose of issuing a threat, or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat.”
Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023): While addressing a state stalking statute, held that a “conscious disregard” standard may suffice for mens rea without violating the First Amendment. The Second Circuit noted this decision but focused on the stricter Elonis standard on appeal.
United States v. Sovie, 122 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 1997): Defined the “true threat” objective test—would a reasonable recipient, familiar with the context, interpret the communication as a threat of bodily harm?
Pattern‐instruction authorities: Modern Federal Jury Instructions—Criminal (Sand et al.) ¶ 31.02 (mens rea); ¶ 6.06 (inferring intent from circumstances); and cases applying them, including Vilar, Raniere, Dupre, and Bell.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis divided into the two components of a § 875(c) violation:

Subjective Mens Rea: Bedell’s voicemails, explicitly threatening to “blow up” the plant and kill the recruiter, along with his on‐the‐scene admissions of anger and intent to scare, demonstrated knowing and intentional transmission of threats. His testimony acknowledging conscious disregard of the risk that his words would be viewed as threats further reinforced mens rea.
Objective “True Threat” Test: The context—an active, around‐the‐clock factory with employees—made clear that the messages could reasonably be understood as genuine threats of bodily harm. The company’s response (sending employees home, hiring armed security) confirmed that fear was instilled.

On jury instructions, the court found that the district court:

Precisely instructed that proof beyond a reasonable doubt required knowledge and intent, and expressly excluded negligence.
Used language drawn from leading pattern instructions to explain how intent may be inferred from actions and surrounding circumstances.
Did not mislead the jury or omit essential legal standards from Elonis or other binding precedents.

Impact of the Decision

Although issued as a non‐precedential summary order, this decision:

Reaffirms the dual subjective and objective elements required under § 875(c), reaffirming Elonis’s stricter mens rea standard.
Confirms the validity and sufficiency of model jury instructions addressing intent, knowledge, and “true threat” analysis in federal courts.
Provides practical guidance for prosecutors and defense counsel in litigating online or telephonic threats, emphasizing the importance of context evidence and precise instruction drafting.

Complex Concepts Simplified

De novo review: Appellate courts independently assess legal issues (here, sufficiency of evidence) without deferring to the trial court.
True threat: A statement that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of intent to inflict harm.
Subjective mens rea vs. objective test: § 875(c) requires both the defendant’s intent or knowledge (subjective) and that the statement qualify as a threat in context (objective).
Conscious disregard: Awareness and intentional disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that one’s statements will be seen as threats (endorsed in Counterman).
Pattern jury instructions: Standardized model instructions that ensure uniform presentation of legal principles to juries.

Conclusion

United States v. Bedell reinforces key principles in prosecuting threats under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). It confirms that:

A defendant must knowingly or intentionally transmit a communication as a threat or with knowledge it will be viewed as such.
The “true threat” standard demands that a reasonable recipient, informed by context, would perceive a genuine threat of bodily harm.
Model jury instructions that exclude negligence and permit inference of intent from actions and circumstances are legally sound.

This decision, though non‐precedential, offers robust guidance on evidentiary sufficiency and jury charge formulation in threat‐related prosecutions, ensuring that courts uniformly apply the Elonis framework and its progeny in the digital age.