A federal appeals court today upheld a 21-month prison sentence for a man convicted of threatening to blow a Boston court clerk's head off in a telephone call over a paperwork snafu.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected Thomas Stefanik's argument that nobody should have taken him seriously because "he is simply a cantankerous, elderly man who made remarks that were admittedly rude and disrespectful, but not criminal."
The ruling came in Stefanik's appeal of his 2010 conviction for threatening a United States official and his subsequent 21-month sentence in a fderal prison.
The year before, Stefanik, upset at a paperwork problem with cases he had filed in US District Court in Springfield, mistakenly called the appeals court in Boston. When one clerk told him he needed to talk to the Springfield court, he suggested she "go to fucking Springfield" to get the paperwork for him and hurled a racial epithet at her. When she demurred and hung up, he called back and got her supervisor:
When Perry [the supervisor] explained that he could not locate the motion, Stefanik became very angry and creamed: "What kind of douche bags do you hire? I'll come down there with my shotgun and show you who means business." ...
The conversation continued with Perry recommending that Stefanik contact the district court and file a status report with the court of appeals. Stefanik agreed to this course of action. He then stated in a conversational tone: "You're lucky I'm only talking on the phone and not driving down there with my shotgun, Perry."
The court rejected Stefanik's cranky-old-coot argument:
It is clear that a reasonable jury could have found Stefanik guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ... In this court's opinion, it is beyond quarrel that Stefanik should have reasonably foreseen that an objectively reasonable person, and more specifically Perry, would perceive statement one - that an armed Stefanik would show up at the courthouse - as a threat. Stefanik did not mince words and there is simply no way to view this first remark, other than as a threat. The fact that Stefanik, later in the conversation, followed it up with statement two does not negate statement one. To the extent it lends context to it, we disagree that it softens the blow. In fact, a reasonable jury could have seen things as Perry did - that statement two (made in a calm tone with a reference to Perry by name) was more concerning because it seemed calculated.
