United States v. Wilson
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
796 F.2d 55 (1986)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Wilson (defendant) was being escorted from a courtroom where he had been brought to testify in the trial of a certain individual. When Wilson passed three other witnesses who were sitting outside the courtroom, he pointed, sneered, and made comments that the witnesses understood to be threats regarding their testimony in the trial. One witness was so upset by the comments that she tried to leave the courthouse and decided not to testify. Another who had testified but had not yet been excused by the court was upset and frightened. The third witness had already testified and been excused and took the comments to be empty threats. Wilson was indicted on three counts of intentionally harassing witnesses to dissuade them from testifying in an official proceeding in violation of the witness-tampering statute. The district court denied Wilson’s request that the jury be instructed that harassment is defined as repeated attacks and instead instructed the jury that harassment is conduct designed to badger, disturb, or pester. The jury found Wilson guilty, but the district court acquitted Wilson on the charges relating to the two witnesses who had already testified. Wilson appealed the decision on the first count, and the government appealed the decision on the other two counts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ervin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
