United States v. Jovica Petrovic

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding defendant’s harassing and distressing communications were integral to his criminal conduct of extortion and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment
• stating that whether a “sexual relationship” constituted a “thing of value” was in the province of the jury
• noting that the statute was violated in part when the defendant set up a website with dozens of images of the victim engaging in sex acts and other embarrassing personal information
• concluding, under the prior version of the statute, that “[m]ost, if not all, of the statute’s legal applications are to conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment” (cleaned up)
• concluding, under the prior version of the statute, that “[m]ost, if not all, of the statute’s legal applications are to con- duct that is not protected by the First Amendment” (alteration adopted)
• upholding stalking conviction where defendant sent sexually explicit pictures of his ex-wife to her place of employment, her boss, and her relatives

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).