## Facts

- William White ran Overthrow.com, a white supremacist website associated with the “American National Socialist Workers Party.”
- After media coverage of post-conviction litigation in a related white supremacist prosecution, White posted an item identifying a juror from that trial, Mark P. Hoffman.
- White’s post included Hoffman’s photograph and detailed personal identifying information, including address and multiple phone numbers, alongside derogatory descriptors about Hoffman.
- After the original linked photograph was removed by a third party, White reposted the photograph and repeated the identifying information in an “update” post.
- Following the posts, Hoffman received harassing communications (including text messages and a phone call), but no physical attack occurred.
- The government charged White under 18 U.S.C. § 373 with soliciting or endeavoring to persuade another to commit a violent federal offense against Hoffman based on his jury service.
- After an earlier dismissal and remand, a jury returned a guilty verdict; White moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 based on insufficient evidence and the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that White, with the required intent and under strongly corroborative circumstances, “solicited” or “otherwise endeavor[ed] to persuade” another to commit a violent federal felony against a juror, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 373.
2. Whether, given the lack of an explicit request for violence, White’s posts were protected speech under the First Amendment rather than unprotected criminal solicitation.

## Decision

- The court granted White’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal and set aside the guilty verdict.
- The court held the evidence did not prove that White’s posts amounted to solicitation or an endeavor to persuade another to commit a violent federal crime.
- The court found the record supported an inference of doxing and harassment, not an intent to cause physical harm through another’s violent conduct.
- Because the statutory elements of solicitation were not proven, the court concluded the posts remained protected by the First Amendment on the evidence presented.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 373, the government must prove (1) intent that another person commit a federal felony involving physical force, (2) circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, and (3) solicitation, command, inducement, or an endeavor to persuade another to engage in that conduct.
- Solicitation requires more than publishing inflammatory content or identifying information; it generally requires asking, urging, or overtly encouraging another to commit a crime.
- Context may inform meaning, but it cannot replace proof of the defendant’s intent to induce violent criminal conduct and proof of conduct that constitutes an endeavor to persuade.
- Criminal solicitation is not protected by the First Amendment, but speech may not be punished as solicitation unless the government proves the statutory elements; otherwise, offensive advocacy and harassment-related expression remain within First Amendment protection.

## Conclusion

The court entered a judgment of acquittal after concluding the government’s evidence showed doxing and resulting harassment but did not establish, as required by § 373, an intent and endeavor to persuade another to commit a violent crime against a juror; absent proof of solicitation, the posts could not constitutionally support the conviction.


United States v. White, 779 F. Supp. 2d 775 (N.D. Ill. 2011)