Law Commons^™

What Were They Thinking: Competing Culpability Standards For Punishing Threats Made To The President, Craig M. Principe

Craig M Principe

This article revisits the Fourth Circuit‘s holding in United States v. Patillo, 431 F.2d 293 (4th Cir. 1970) (panel), reh’g granted, 438 F.2d 13 (1971) (en banc). Although that decision is almost forty years old, it still remains a source of contention and confusion in the law of threats. It is widely cited as creating a subjective ―present intent‖ requirement for 18 U.S.C. § 871(a) (threats against the president)—a standard that has only been recognized by the Fourth Circuit and stands in stark contrast to the objective Roy/Ragansky Test adopted by virtually all other circuits. Indeed, judges and commentators have …