Please visit my author page at amazon.com
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Jorgenson. MN First Amendment
The coercion statute, Minn. Stat. 609.27, subd. 1(4) prohibits a written or oral "threat to expose a secret or deformity, publish a defamatory statement, or otherwise to expose any person to disgrace or ridicule."
After his girlfriend ended their relationship and sought to evict him, the defendant started making threatening calls to her father. Eventually, he threatened to release a video in which she talked about smoking marijuana, unless her father paid him $25,000. He said he was going to give the video to her employer, the department of human services, and a professional licensing board.
After the case was dismissed in another county on jurisdictional grounds, the defendant was charged with attempted coercion in Olmstead county. The district court dismissed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment. The state appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The state asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to review and the high court agreed to hear the case.
The court pointed out that the First Amendment is not absolute, and some speech is not protected, such as "fighting words" or "true threats."
The court agreed that there were threats made in this case, but that they did not arise to the level of "true threats" as contemplated by First Amendment jurisprudence. In this case, the statute criminalized speech that was defamatory, even if not tortious. For example, a true defamatory statement would be criminalized by the statute. And the terms of the statute would apply even if it touched on a matter of public concern. The statute criminalized speech even if the recipient of the threat suffered no loss.
The "true threat" exception did not apply, because to be a "true threat," the threatened conduct must be unlawful. For these reasons, the Court, in an opinion penned by Justice Lillehaug, held that the statute was unconstitutional and affirmed.
Chief Justice Gildea argued that the statute could be interpreted in such a way as to be constitutional. For that reason, she dissented.
No. A19-0323 (Minn. July 22, 2020).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his
low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case
summaries
Copyright 2020, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com