Ray v. Brierley (1972)

See also United States v. Carrier, 708 F.2d 77, 79 (2nd Cir.1983) (there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction under Sec. 871 where evidence entitled the jury to infer that the defendant intended that her statements be understood by others as a serious threat to the President); United States v. Callahan, 702 F.2d 964 (11th Cir.1983) (to establish violation of sec. 871 the government must prove that the defendant "understood the meaning of the words to be an apparen…

See United States v. Hart, 457 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861 , 93 S.Ct. 150 , 34 L.Ed.2d 108 (1972); Michaud v. United States, 350 F.2d 131 (10th Cir. 1965).

Compare Roy v. United States, 416 F.2d 874, 877-78 (9th Cir.1969) (threatening statement is willful if a reasonable person should foresee that the hearers would take the statement seriously), and United States v. Hart, 457 F.2d 1087, 1090-91 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 861 , 93 S.Ct. 150 , 34 L.Ed.2d 108 (1972) (same), with United States v. Patillo, 431 F.2d 293 (4th Cir. 1970), panel opinion adhered to, 438 F.2d 13 (4th Cir.1971) (en banc) (threat against the Presid…

Compare Roy v. United States, 416 F.2d 874, 877-78 (9th Cir. 1969) (threatening statement is willful if a reasonable person should foresee that the hearers would take the statement seriously), and United States v. Hart, 457 F.2d 1087, 1090-91 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861 , 93 S.Ct. 150 , 34 L.Ed.2d 108 (1972) (same), with United States v. Patilio, 431 F.2d 293 (4th Cir. 1970), panel opinion adhered to, 438 F.2d *1363 13 (4th Cir. 1971) (en banc) (threat against Pr…

See United States v. Allard, 458 F.2d 1136, 1139 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861 , 93 S.Ct. 149 , 34 L.Ed.2d 108 (1972); United States v. Giuliano, 263 F.2d 582, 585 (3d Cir. 1959).

See Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 745, 746 , 187 S.E.2d 189, 190 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861 (1972). “[A] photograph which is verified by the testimony of a witness as fairly representing what that witness has observed is admissible in evidence and . . . it need not be proved by the photographer who made it.” Id.

See Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 745, 746 , 187 S.E.2d 189, 190 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861 (1972). “[A] photograph which is verified by the testimony of a witness as fairly representing what that witness has observed is admissible in evidence and ... it need not be proved by the photographer who made it.” Id.

Co., Inc. v. Commonwealth, State Water Control Bd., 50 Va. App. 383, 392 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Adams v. Ristine, 138 Va. 273, 298 (1924)); see also Brooks v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 407, 410 (1992) (“Videotapes, like photographs, when properly authenticated, may be admitted . . . as ‘mute,’ ‘silent,’ or ‘dumb’ independent photographic witnesses.” (quoting Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 745, 746 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861 (1972))).

See Bennett v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 475, 488 (2018) (holding that the appellant’s Confrontation Clause argument failed where the video was admitted as a silent witness and did not include any actions that could be construed as an assertion); see also Brooks v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 407, 410 (1992) (“Videotapes, like photographs, when properly authenticated, may be admitted . . . as ‘mute,’ ‘silent,’ or ‘dumb’ independent photographic witnesses.” (quoting Ferguson v.…

See United States v. Allard, 458 F.2d 1136 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 861 , 93 S.Ct. 149 , 34 L.Ed.2d 108 (1972) (defendant liable for scheme to defraud carried out through use of innocent third party).

See e.g., Golden v. Henderson, 456 F.2d 376 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 409 U.S. 861 , 93 S.Ct. 149 , 34 L.Ed. 2d 323 (1972); Dominguez v. Henderson, 447 F.2d 207 (5th Cir.1971).