The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Federal Threats / False Statements Indictment for "Hate Crime Hoax"
From Tuesday's press release by the U.S. Attorney's office in Colorado:
The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado announces that Derrick Bernard Jr., 35, Ashely Blackcloud, 40, and Deanna West, 38, were indicted by a federal grand jury for maliciously conveying false information about a threat made by means of fire: a burning cross in front of a campaign sign defaced with a racial slur.
According to the indictment, the three defendants were charged for their alleged roles in a conspiracy to spread disinformation about the threat. The 2023 Colorado Springs mayoral run-off election involved Candidate 1, who was Black, and Candidate 2, who was white. After the initial election but before the run-off, Bernard sent a message to the other defendants in which he explained he was "mobilizing my squad in defense. Black ops style big brother." He also sent messages referencing a desire to prevent "the klan" from gaining political control of the city. Bernard then worked with Blackcloud and West to stage, at an intersection in the City of Colorado Springs in the early hours of April 23, 2023, a cross burning in front of a campaign sign for Candidate 1 defaced with a racial slur. The three then allegedly spread false information about the event through an email from an anonymous source to various news and civic organizations.
From the indictment:
During the election, supporters of CANDIDATE 1 placed a campaign sign encouraging others to vote for CANDIDATE 1 in a grassy area on the northwest corner of the intersection of North Union Boulevard and East Fillmore Street, two of Colorado Springs's major traffic arteries. On or about April 23, 2023, between approximately 2:30 a.m. and 3:30 a.m. BERNARD, BLACKCLOUD, and WEST worked together to place a wooden cross in front of that campaign sign. Red spray paint, similar in kind to a can later found in the passenger compartment of BLACKCLOUD's car, was used to write the word "nigger" on the sign. The wooden cross was then set on fire….
[L]ater in the evening …, BLACKCLOUD and WEST worked together to send an email … to, among others, local broadcast news outlets. Attached to the email was the above photograph and the video[, which they themselves took]. Several news organizations published news stories on the cross burning.
The indictment also alleges other things the defendants did to further publicize the supposed "hate crime" that they themselves created.
All this, the prosecutors argue, constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) (as well as conspiracy to violate it):
Whoever, through the use of the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate or foreign commerce, or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
willfully makes any threat,
or maliciously conveys false information knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made, or to be made, to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property by means of fire or an explosive
shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined under this title, or both.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is the law that was meant to be used to charge people who called in fake bomb threats. The federal law is written so broadly it prohibits lying about a burning cross. I think my state's corresponding law is not so broad.
Another guy who got caught lying about the past instead of the future: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ex-employee-bostons-northeastern-university-convicted-hoax-bombing-2024-06-28/
I think false statements about past crimes should be punished under the general false statements law (18 USC 1001) and not treated the same as calling in a bomb threat. A threat of a future bombing has consequences beyond wasting investigators' time.
Since it doesn’t appear these false statements were made to anyone in the federal government, I doubt that would be a viable charge.
A fake hate crime threat has far larger consequences than a random fake bomb threat.
Seems most unfair.
Selective prosecution. How often do fake racism cries get prosecuted ? One in a thousand ? One in ten thousand ?
The law used here requires fire. Falsely claiming to have smoked a stolen cigarette counts. Falsely claiming to have been beat up by racists does not count.
No, it doesn’t.
OK, technically "fire or an explosive".
Again, missing the point. The law criminalizes certain threats involving fire or explosives, not any crime that involves fire or explosives.
The demand for racial hatred far outpaces its supply.
No, I am not suggesting there are zero incidents traced to racial hatred. I am saying there are a lot of people who wish there were more.
As far as appropriate charges goes, whatever would have been charged had it not been a hoax is fine with me. If there is some kind of enhancement, they deserve it. If the state wants to play Karnac in determining exact crimes are different based on mindset, then they can play Karnac on people who fake the crime.
"racial hatred far outpaces its supply"
Thus, the river of cheap low-quality substitutes.
While I agree that criminal punishment is appropriate for this conduct, based on the allegations in the indictment it doesn’t seem like the defendants had the necessary mens rea for this particular charge.
What they dd was a crime but it's pretty clearly not that crime. The only thing damaged or destroyed by fire was their own property - the two sticks they slapped together to make the cross. And no, burning a cross is not automatically the same as threatening to burn a candidate (no matter how much some of them deserve it).
It may fall under the "intimidate any individual" part.
“Two third-year law students at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School are suing university officials for violating their First Amendment rights over remarks they made during an online chat with classmates about a proposal to put tampons in a men’s restroom, according to the lawsuit.”
Press: https://patch.com/virginia/arlington-va/gmu-students-punished-over-remarks-proposed-tampon-policy-lawsuit
Complaint: https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/CerankoskyComplaint.pdf
Just a false flag operation, as many noose placements are.
I think a jury could find that the public would have perceived that Candidate #1 was being threatened. The felony statute involved may or may not he overkill for the crime as a policy matter. But I think the evidence could show that ir fits the words of the statute.
In addition, I think it’s reasonable for government to give higher sentences to, and perhaps upcharge, people who use lies and hoaxes to influence elections. It is no more directly related to the words of the statute than the tax evasion statute was directly related to Al Capone’s gangster activities. But it would be reasonable for a judge to consider the election context and to give a higher-than-standard sentence as a result.
Jeez-us, who made that Cross, the same guy who built the January 6th "Gallows"???
What, no noose?