Background
Thomas Woollacott left two anonymous voicemails to United States Representative Andy Barr and his staff in Kentucky. The messages contained threats of violence, including references to hunting the Congressman down and telling staff to wear bulletproof vests. Staff members testified they were frightened and alerted law enforcement. Woollacott was arrested and charged with threatening a federal official. He was convicted on one count and sentenced to thirty months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the standard for true threats, determining that a reasonable observer would view the statements as a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence. The court found the context, including the visceral tone and the staff’s alarmed reaction, supported the finding of a true threat. Regarding the mental state, the court held that the jury instructions requiring proof of intent to impede or retaliate satisfied the subjective intent requirement established by Counterman and Elonis, as intent is a higher standard than recklessness.
The statement in question was a true threat and the district court properly instructed the jury.
United States v. Woollacott, No. 25-5723 (6th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that threatening communications directed at federal officials can constitute criminal true threats even when hyperbolic, provided the context indicates a serious intent to harm. It also clarifies that jury instructions focusing on specific intent to impede or retaliate satisfy constitutional requirements for subjective mental state in threat cases.