## Facts

- William White operated and edited the “Overthrow” website to advance white supremacist views and posted content praising or advocating violence.
- White previously wrote that “[e]veryone associated with the Matt Hale trial has deserved assassination for a long time,” and posted statements approving violence connected to the Hale prosecution.
- In September 2008, White posted about the Hale jury foreperson (“Juror A”), identifying him by name, describing him as the “gay, Jewish foreman,” and publishing his home address and multiple phone numbers.
- The September 2008 post did not explicitly direct readers to harm Juror A, but it singled him out and provided actionable personal information.
- After the post, users sent Juror A harassing emails; trial evidence included testimony that some readers looked to the site for guidance, including guidance related to violence.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that White, with intent required by 18 U.S.C. § 373, solicited another person to commit a federal crime of violence against Juror A, and whether circumstances “strongly corroborative” of that intent were shown.
2. Whether the challenged postings were protected by the First Amendment or constituted unprotected criminal solicitation.
3. If the judgment of acquittal were reversed, whether White was entitled to a new trial based on alleged trial errors.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s post-verdict judgment of acquittal and reinstated the jury’s guilty verdict.
- The court held that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that White intended to solicit violence against Juror A and that § 373’s “strongly corroborative” requirement was satisfied by contextual evidence.
- The court held that criminal solicitation is not protected by the First Amendment and that the prosecution targeted solicitation rather than abstract advocacy.
- The court denied White’s cross-appeal for a new trial and remanded for sentencing.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 373, solicitation may be communicated implicitly; an explicit command is not required when intent can be inferred from context.
- The “circumstances strongly corroborative” element may be proven through the totality of circumstances, including prior statements praising violence, the target’s identification, and the provision of detailed personal information to an audience capable of acting.
- On Rule 29 review, courts must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and may not substitute their own weighing of the evidence for the jury’s.
- Criminal solicitation falls outside First Amendment protection; prosecutions for solicitation punish intentional inducement of a specific violent crime, not mere expression of extremist ideology or general advocacy.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that § 373 permits a jury to infer intent to solicit violence from context and corroborating circumstances, reinstated White’s conviction for soliciting violence against a juror, rejected a First Amendment defense, denied a new trial, and remanded for sentencing.


United States v. White, 698 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2012)