Circuit split · criminal law
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (interstate transmission of a threat) is a specific-intent or general-intent crime
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- United States v. Darby37 F3D 1059
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · October 21, 1994
“We recognize that there is a split among the circuits as to whether section 875(c) is a specific intent crime or a general intent crime.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
18 U.S.C. § 875 — Interstate communications
“(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Discussed · 9th Cir.United States v. Twine853 F.2d 676
“The Appellant urges this court to adopt the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in Twine, supra.” — United States v. Darby, acknowledging the split
- Discussed · 6th Cir.United States v. DeAndino958 F.2d 146
What the split turns on
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.