Child custody/murder/ cyber stalking = life [Archive]

tod evans

02-19-2016, 07:40 AM

From Drudge;

Family members sentenced to life in prison in U.S. cyberstalking case

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/family-members-sentenced-life-prison-u-cyberstalking-case-091901794.html

A U.S. man and his sister were sentenced to life in prison on Thursday for cyberstalking that led to the shooting death of the man's former wife and her friend in a Delaware courthouse lobby ahead of a contentious child custody hearing.

David Matusiewicz, his sister Amy Gonzalez and his mother Lenore were convicted in U.S. District Court in Delaware last July of cyberstalking resulting in death, the first successful application of federal law on the offense, prosecutors said. They were also found guilty of conspiracy.

Matusiewicz and Gonzalez were sentenced to life by U.S. District Judge Gerald McHugh on Thursday, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware said. Matusiewicz's mother was sentenced to life at her bedside last week at Jefferson Medical Center in Philadelphia, federal prosecutors said.

"This ground-breaking prosecution and investigation shows people who actively take part in planning crimes, even though they don't pull the trigger, will be held accountable," said Kevin Perkins, special agent in charge of the FBI in Delaware.

On Feb. 11, 2013, David Matusiewicz and his father Thomas went to confront David's ex-wife Christine Belford at New Castle County Courthouse when she arrived for a child support hearing in their custody case.

Thomas Matusiewicz then shot dead Belford and her friend Laura Mulford in the courthouse lobby and took his own life after exchanging gunfire with police.

The shooting was the culmination of a four-year campaign of letters, websites and Internet postings to "stalk, harass, and intimidate" Belford, the mother of David Matusiewicz's three children, according to U.S. prosecutors.

They said David Matusiewicz orchestrated the plan and recruited his parents and sister while serving a 48-month jail term for abducting his children and hiding out with them for 19 months in Nicaragua and other countries.

presence

02-19-2016, 08:01 AM

[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press
do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation
except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action)
and is likely to incite or cause such action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) (1969)

overruled Whitney v. California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California) (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action#cite_note-1) and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the "evil", discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as necessary to avoid the danger.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States

California enacted the first anti-stalking law in 1990. Eventually, all 50 states and the District of Columbia passed legislation that addresses the problem of stalking. Initially these laws varied widely, containing provisions that made the laws virtually unenforceable due to ambiguities and the dual requirements to show specific criminal intent and a credible threat. Many states have amended these stalking statutes to broaden definitions, refine wording, stiffen penalties, and emphasize the suspect's pattern of activity. In most states, to charge and convict a defendant of stalking, several elements must be proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt). These elements include a course of conduct or behavior, the presence of threats, and the criminal intent to cause fear in the victim.
A course of conduct is a series of acts that, viewed collectively, present a pattern of behavior. Some states stipulate the requisite number of acts, with several requiring the stalker to commit two or more acts. States designate as stalking a variety of acts, ranging from specifically defined actions, such as nonconsensual communication or lying in wait, to more general types of action, such as harassment.
Most states require that the stalker pose a threat or act in a way that causes a reasonable person to feel fearful. The threat does not have to be written or verbal to instill fear. For example, a stalker can convey a threat by sending the victim black roses, forming his hand into a gun and pointing it at her, or delivering a dead animal to her doorstep.
To be convicted of stalking in most states, the stalker must display a criminal intent to cause fear in the victim. Various statutes require the conduct of the stalker to be "willful," "purposeful," "intentional," or "knowing." Many states do not require proof that the defendant intended to cause fear as long as he intended to commit the act that resulted in fear. In these states, if the victim is reasonably frightened by the alleged perpetrator's conduct, the intent element of the crime has been met.
Defendants have challenged the constitutionality of anti-stalking statutes in many states. They alleged that the laws are so vague that they violate Due Process of Law (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/due+process+of+law) or are so broad that they infringe upon constitutionally protected speech or activity. Generally the courts have rejected these arguments and have upheld the anti-stalking laws.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking

The judge clarified, “There are two ways which there could be liability for the death of Christine Belford.”

The first is related to each defendants’ personal conduct. [B]The jury must answer two questions in this case: would the death have happened without the conduct? And, was her death a natural consequence of the conduct?
The second can only be reached if the jury already found that the defendants were guilty of the first count, conspiracy. In that case, with a finding conspiracy, the defendant could be found liable for Belford’s death based on the actions of a co-conspirator.

http://blogs.delawareonline.com/courthouse-shooting-trial/2015/07/10/judge-clarifies-the-resulting-in-death-question/

http://blogs.delawareonline.com/courthouse-shooting-trial/files/2015/07/IMG_0007-768x1024.jpg