-- Read the court's 30-page opinion HERE. It's Case No. 11-2150. Here's the key excerpt from the opinion (links embedded within the excerpt are mine):
William White was charged with soliciting the commission of a violent federal crime against a juror in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373. The alleged solicitations at issue were messages that White posted to a website that he created to advance white supremacy, which included White’s 2005 statement that “[e]veryone associated with the Matt Hale trial has deserved assassination for a long time,” and his 2008 publication of information related to the foreperson, “Juror A,” of the jury that convicted Hale. The 2008 post disclosed Juror A’s home address and mobile, home, and work phone numbers, though it did not contain an explicit request for Juror A to be harmed.
White was tried and convicted by a jury. White then filed a Rule 29 motion for entry of a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of solicitation. The district court granted the motion, finding that the government failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that White was guilty of criminal solicitation, and that White’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. The government appeals that ruling, and White has filed a cross-appeal urging a new trial if we reverse the judgment of acquittal. After reviewing the trial record, we conclude that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that, based on the contents of the website, its readership, and other contextual factors, White intentionally solicited a violent crime against Juror A by posting Juror A’s personal information on his website. Criminal solicitation is not protected by the First Amendment, and so we reverse White’s acquittal and reinstate his conviction. Also, because White is not entitled to a new trial, we remand for sentencing.
Juror A was previously identified publicly as Mark Hoffmann, a gay Jew who was involved in a homosexual relationship with a Negro male. White now faces an additional prison term of up to 10 years, though a sentencing date hasn't been set. He is currently serving the last months of a prison term that arose from a separate conviction for intimidation as well as three additional months for violating parole, and had expected to be released by July 2013.
White's attorney Nishay Sanan sharply criticized the ruling, saying the judges were swayed by his client's widely reviled racial and political views rather than sound legal theory. He believes the judges were influenced by personal hatred of his client. Sanan favors an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying he would argue that the First Amendment protects Internet postings such as White's. But he said White would make the final decision about further legal action.
How in hell Bill White's supposed to raise the money necessary for a Supreme Court ruling is beyond imagination, since White has been virtually bankrupted by his legal troubles so far. With as much trouble as Don Black has in raising $7500 every month for Stormfront's operation, do you really think White racialists are going to contribute funds for the defense of the much less popular Bill White?
Oh, and let's not forget that according to a letter by Bill White dated October 9th, it was Hal Turner who set all of these events in motion. White said that Turner, out of personal spite, contacted the U.S. Marshals and, with the help of other informants, falsely claimed he was going to assassinate Barack Obama with a truck bomb in order to cause White's arrest on false pretenses. The Feds told White they wouldn't press charges if White rolled over and became a snitch, but White refused. The rest is history.
The Bill White Trial blog has published their own analysis of the ruling. No reaction from White himself has been published yet.