According to the law, a person is guilty when they threaten another person either directly or indirectly with the purpose of committing violence against the person; then they are guilty of the offense. Eloni had threatened his wife on Facebook after the two divorced. The wife saw the post on Facebook and decided to sue the ex-husband for the threatening passwords. Eloni decided to argue that the reason for the threats was because he was dissatisfied with the divorce arguing that the posts were like fictitious lyrics like those of the rapper Eminem.
When the case was presented before the court by the wife of Eloni, the question was whether Eloni had violated any law or not. The case had come up arguing that her life was in danger based on the posts that her husband had posted on his Facebook platform. After the judge heard the case, he made a judgment that Eloni was guilty of the offense. He was convicted to 44 months in prison for committing the offense. Eloni decided to file an appeal after being convicted for 44 months successfully. In his appeal, he argued that the first judge made the wrong decision because the judge did not follow the statute as it is in the law.
There is a law that is set to protect the people against threats, and the law aims at punishing the people that threaten others either knowingly or unknowingly. In our case, Eloni had threatened his wife using a Facebook post. Elonis argued that the first judge did not consider that the communication through the posts on the Facebook posts was a way of relieving stress after the separation, he argued that there is no way that he could post such message and proceed to commit the offenses. The judge was convinced that Eloni was not guilty and released from prison. The judge said the basis of her decision that posting the post on social media does not mean that the person means to commit the crime. If the client wants to commit the crime could not have posted the post on Facebook where everyone can see the post.
The prosecutor of the case failed to prosecute the case well in a manner that could have convinced the judge while making the decision. He could have based the argument that the comments on the post were specific of what was to be done to the defendant (Severance, 2016). That way the judge could be convinced that the accused relay meant to harm the defendant. The accused was released after the case was declared null and void.
The judge did not instruct the jury to make the right decision when it comes to deciding whether the accused was guilty or innocent. Based on the conclusion that was arrived at by the judge, the jury could have seen the weakness of the case based on the arguments of the prosecution (Severance, 2016). The defendant is required to be guilty before a judgment can be made that he/she has to serve a jail sentence. The defendant was particular on the Facebook post on the person that he wanted to harm. This kind of threat is a crime under the law that merit conviction.
In conclusion, the jury was right in his conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offense and therefore they deserved the conviction. Different judges had their thoughts regarding the case, but the decision by the jury made more sense. The weakness of the case was caused by the prosecutor who failed to prosecute the case using the right perspective. The prosecutor plays a significant role in the success of the case.
The judge should have instructed the jury to dismiss the case for lack of enough evidence. The mens rea that the defendant needed to have to be guilty was for the Facebook post to be a specific person that was being threatened. The Facebook post did not name the person to be attacked. The prosecution failed to the element of the crime on the post.
Severance, L. (2016). Improving the Ability of Jurors to Comprehend and Apply Criminal Jury Instructions. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053535?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents