"Former Cornell Student Sentenced for Posting Online Threats Against Jewish Students On Campus"

The defendant's statements, from the criminal charges filed against him.

 

From a Justice Department press release Monday:

Patrick Dai, 22, formerly a junior at Cornell University and originally from Pittsford, New York, was sentenced today to 21 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and a special assessment in the amount of $100 for posting threats to kill or injure another person using interstate communications….

As part of his previously entered guilty plea, Dai admitted that, on Oct. 28 and 29, 2023, he posted threatening messages to the Cornell section of an online discussion forum, including posts that said "gonna shoot up 104 west" (a dining hall at Cornell University that caters predominantly to Kosher diets and is next to the Cornell Jewish Center that provides residential accommodations for students) and "gonna bomb jewish house." In another post, Dai threatened to "stab" and "slit the throat" of any Jewish man he saw on campus, to rape and throw off a cliff any Jewish women he saw and to behead any Jewish babies. In that same post, Dai threatened to "bring an assault rifle to campus and shoot all you pig jews."

Twenty-one months seems to me like a light sentence for public threats of multiple murder. But I'm not sure what the norm in such cases is; perhaps such sentences are common for such threats, at least for first offenders.

Comments

[Krayt]

By "Jew" he means shorthand for people who support Israel?

[Michael P]

I believe the names targets were places where people congregate because they are Jewish, not because they support Israel, so no: I think by "Jew" he meant "Jew".

[Rossami]

Given sentences for actual murder, 21 months does not seem unreasonable. I'm confused about the $100 "special assessment", though. What possible judicial goal is served by something so trivial on top of an actual jail sentence?

[Bored Lawyer]

The special assessments are mandatory and imposed by statute. They have it in the federal system, too. It supposedly is used for court costs, but I agree it's silly.

My first firm represented a notorious stock swindler named Eddie Antar, aka Crazy Eddie. At his sentencing, he was given 7 years in jail, $ 1 billion restitution order, and a $ 50 special assessment. The US Attorney at the time told my boss, who was his chief counsel, that she was embarrassed that that had been added.

[John F. Carr]

A special assessment is a fine imposed by 18 USC 3013 for all criminal convictions, from $5 for an infraction up to $100 for a felony. It is not based on the facts of the case or ability to pay. It is simply an additional fine on top of any other fine.

[Randal]

That’s why we always insist on the principle of information retrieval charges.

[John F. Carr]

I think 21 months is quite a long sentence. Federal criminal law likes long sentences.

He seems to have been sentenced close to what the sentencing guidelines call for. I did not find the sentencing memorandum. The crime he was charged with, 18 USC 875(b), uses sentencing guideline 2B3.2 "Extortion by Force or Threat of Injury or Serious Damage". With a threat of injury the offense level is 20, less 3 points for pleading guilty gives 17. For a first offender at offense level 17 the guidelines sentence is 24-30 months.

[John F. Carr]

I found the docket. He pleaded to 18 USC 875(c), a lesser offense with a base offense level of 12 instead of 18. The government requested enhancements for "substantial disruption" (1A6.1(b)(4)(a)) and "hate crime" (3A1.1(a)). That should leave the offense level 19 (one point lower than I thought) before the discount for pleading guilty. He was sentenced at the low end of the guideline range.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68426717/united-states-v-dai/

Defendant's attorney argued the sentencing guidelines do not apply at all in the wake of Loper Bright.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

The specific Loper Bright argument in the defendant's sentencing memo submission:

> In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. __, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (June. 28, 2024), the Supreme Court held that courts may no longer defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Courts are now free to ignore the Sentencing Guidelines.

> Congress created the Sentencing Commission as part of the Sentencing Reform Act. The Sentencing Commission was tasked with creating mandatory [g]uidelines that interpret and implement the conflicting and ambiguous sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 25 However, the Sentencing Guidelines are no
longer mandatory following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Yet, Congress and the Sentencing Commission have failed to redesign the advisory Guidelines. As a consequence, the Guidelines no longer fulfill their purpose of providing certainty and uniformity. Indeed, less than half of all defendants are
sentenced within the Guidelines.26 And many of the individual Guidelines, including the challenged ones here, are no longer (if they ever were) based on empirical evidence, leading to irrationally long guideline ranges that have contributed to over-populated prisons, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 994(g). Therefore, this Court should decline to give the Sentencing Guidelines any deference in this
case.

To me this seems superficially completely bonkers!!

[Bob from Ohio]

"I think 21 months is quite a long sentence. "

He got less time than many of the January 6 protestors for misdemeanors

[David Nieporent]

He didn't try to overthrow the government.

[Mr. Bumble]

Overthrow the government by trespassing?

[Magister]

By breaking doors and windows, assaulting police officers, and apparently plans to hang the Vice President.

I am curious who the many January 6th defendants are who got more than 21 months in prison but were only convicted of misdemeanors.

[Michael P]

Overthrow the government by breaking does and windows and assaulting police officers! What's next, prosecuting some of the summer 2020 rioters for attempting to overthrow the government because they did the same things?

[David Nieporent]

Michael P can't tell the difference between two acts that have similar conduct but happen in different places for different motives.

[Bwaaah]

David Nieporent: "He didn’t try to overthrow the government."

And though there may be exceptions that I haven't seen, the courts haven't found that January 6 protesters tried to "overthrow the government." That's a fantasy you use to justify your unsupported, distorted, invalid analysis.

[Magister]

There were a number of convictions for seditious conspiracy, which would seem to be exactly what David Nieporent was talking about.

[Bwaaah]

Yes, and exceptions to the prevailing behaviors/motives of J6 protesters. David casts a falsely disparaging/misleading picture of the many by citing the malicious, incompetent actions of an exceptional, non-representative few.

[Magister]

Still nobody willing to list any January 6th defendants who got more than 21 months for misdemeanors. The long sentences all appear to be for felonies, including attacking police and seditious conspiracy. If there are many, Bob from Ohio should have no trouble naming one or two.

[Bwaaah]

I took some time to a detailed review of J6 protester charges and sentences a few months ago (using an NPR database), and found that every case of jail time that I examined included notable aggravating factors, particularly assault and what I would allow as genuinely "seditious conspiracy." So I believe your are correct.

[Longtobefree]

What, no hate crime charges?
No terrorism add on?
Oh, wait; New York. It was only Jews.

[John F. Carr]

He got a longer sentence because the prosecutor said the crime was a hate crime.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he’ll get the “Jeffy Dahmer” Sentence Enhancement, are there Jewish gangs in Prison?

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Black Hebrew Israelites?

[Ilya Snowman]

What is this creature doing on a 'white' settler colony on stolen Indian land?

[Voize]

In 2015 Eugene blogged about Elonis that the decision failed to address the question of how specifically targeted a true threat had to be:

[W]hat about statements that allegedly threaten unspecified members of a vast group of people — such as police officers generally, or abortion providers, or capitalists, or Jews or blacks or gays or any other large group? [...] Those are not uncommon in talk about public issues, and I think that they are probably not specific enough to be punishable threats

I expect the same question would apply here, has the law been further developed in this area in the intervening 9 years?

[Ed Grinberg]

Did you miss the part where the defendant threatened to "shoot up 104 West" / "bomb [Cornell] jewish house"? Seems pretty "specifically targeted" to me...

[Area Man]

Such an injustice seeing as though that guy is our social better. Or so I'm told.

[DWB]

Democrats and their racial hated --- only the object of hate changes.

[Frank Drackman]

I’ve got more black friends than white, yes, some of my best friends are Black! And yes I really do have Friends, does the guy in Terror-Ann I play Chess with count?
And unlike Irrelevant Joe, I’ve never threatened a Colored Guy with a Bicycle Chain (357 Magnum yes, Bicycle Chain No)

Frank