Watts v. United States: Case Brief on Writ of Certiorari to the District of Columbia Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals

Posted by

On September 12, 2024

Comments Off

Updated: Sep, 12th, 2024

Facts

This lawsuit stems from a petition filed after Watts was found guilty of endangering the president of the United States. The defendant had stated during a political debate that if he joined the army and was required to be armed, President Lyndon B. Johnson would be the first person he would shoot (United States Report, 2020). According to Watt’s appeal, the fact that he refused to enlist in the military indicates that he did not knowingly or voluntarily threaten the president.

Get a custom essay on any Case Brief

Click Here

Procedural History

The defendant was found guilty of breaking the 1917 Act by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This law makes it illegal for anybody to maliciously and intentionally threaten to kill or harm the president of the United States.
Watts appealed bad his case was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld the conviction by a two-to-one margin (United States Report, 2020).
Afterwards, Watt’s case was returned with the direction that it be taken back to the District Court so that a verdict of acquittal could be entered. The petitioner was found guilty by the District Court, who traced his guilt back to the Statute of Treasons. To contemplate or threaten the killing of the King or to assassinate the President is illegal, according to the Law of Treasons.
The District Court used analogous examples of previously convicted perpetrators like William Walker, Thomas Burdet, Edward Brownlow, and an unidentified onlooker to demonstrate Watt’s culpability.

Question

The petitioner’s political opposition remark that it was wrong to kill people and should be prevented from happening to black people. Do protecting people’s lives constitute violation of the rule of law?

Holding

The District of Columbia’s United States District Court determined that Watt had broken a 1917 law that forbade anybody from “knowingly and intentionally” endangering or murdering the US President. The case was sent back to the District Court when the judges at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed about whether the defendant carried out his threatening comments voluntarily (United States Report, 2020).The defendant was then found guilty of the alleged offense by the District Court.

Rationale

Justices at the three courts gave different opinions on the case

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Conviction is held by a two-to-one margin but we need the verdict of acquittal entered at the District Court

According to the defendant, anyone who supports the murder of black people should also be put to death.

The defendant was later found guilty after disagreements among justices. According to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Watts’ comments were purposefully and deliberately mentioned.

The Executive is Protected and Should Do Their Duties without Interference, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Watt posed a threat to the presidency as a result. Judges at the District Court ruled that considering or plotting to kill the president constitutes treason and is criminal in accordance with the Law of Treasons.

Interpretive Method Used

Judges frequently use the social construction of reality theory while debating whether an accusation was true or not. As Watts argues with, he never liked murdering of civilians and, if given the opportunity and access to a rifle, would deal with anyone who condones murder. The courts respond by informing the defendant that the rule of law is in place because all legislators concur that threats are unnecessary (Berger & Luckmann, 2020). Hence, notwithstanding Watt’s good intentions at the time of his speech, the ruling structures already agreed before it was published that endangering the president is wrong.

Rule of Law Established

“It is a felony to compass or contemplate the death of the King”, acts as the rule of law that was breached by the defendant upon pledging to kill the president when handed a rifle in defense of black people. Contemplating death of an executive would thus be an offense for future cases.

Reaction

The defendant shouldn’t be penalized, in my opinion, because he was sincere and indirect. Watts said during his speech that killing innocent people was wrong and that he had no black enemies. As a result, the defendant was merely expressing his views regarding injustices when he said that, in the event that the president permitted the executions, he would also kill for justice to be served. The term “president” was simply used as an example of someone who might be approving unjust deaths, while the term “rifle” denoted any weapon that might be used to punish unjust authorities.