Supreme Court ruling allows MD man to request to vacate sentence for threats, 4th Circuit holds

A Maryland man convicted for mailing threats to judicial and public officials can request to vacate his sentence in light of a 2023 ruling by the nation’s highest court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held last week.

In a published opinion written by Chief Judge Albert Diaz, the 4th Circuit determined the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision in Counterman v. Colorado — which provides that the government must prove a defendant in a true-threat case had “some understanding of his statements’ threatening character” — announced a new rule of constitutional law that allows defendant Scott Rendelman’s motion to proceed.

Rendelman moved to vacate his conviction, citing Counterman, which he argued shows the district court’s jury instructions violated the First Amendment and allowed the jury “to find [him] guilty of conduct the Supreme Court has now made clear is not criminal.”

In Counterman, a Colorado man appealed his conviction for making threatening statements to a woman via Facebook, arguing the First Amendment requires the state to prove he had a subjective intent to threaten. Though a statement can be considered a true threat “based solely on its objective content,” the nation’s highest court held that the First Amendment requires more in a true-threat prosecution.

The 4th Circuit panel of judges found Counterman “is on point” in Rendelman’s case.

“The jury wasn’t instructed that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he subjectively intended to threaten another, and the government acknowledges that this omission was error,” Diaz wrote. “Whether that error warrants relief under § 2255 is a merits question for the district court to decide in the first instance when it considers Rendelman’s § 2255 motion.”

The government argued Rendelman has not stated a plausible claim to relief.

Counsel for Rendelman and a spokesperson for the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the appeals court’s ruling.

In 2008, a Maryland district court convicted Rendelman of mailing threatening communications to a state court judge, state prosecutor, local attorney and federal officials, including the U.S. president and White House employees. During trial, the district court emphasized that the standard is not what “is in Mr. Rendelman’s mind that is relevant,” but rather “It’s what a reasonable person receiving that communication would believe it to be.” Rendelman twice tried to vacate his sentence, albeit unsuccessfully.

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Counterman, which established a new standard — namely that the government must prove a defendant had a mens rea — or criminal intent — of recklessness, where the defendant “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”