• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Friend Arrested for Prank Calls, Alleged "Death-Threats"

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Grim

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Arizona

A friend of mine (let us call him Adam), age 18, who lives in Arizona, was recently arrested for "making threatening phone calls." Allegedly, Adam used a pre-recorded sound board to make life-threatening phone calls.

Essentially, the phone was being dialed to a random number, then the handle of the phone was held up to a computer speaker. Then, clips from famous movies were played. Examples include Arnold Shwartzenegger (and other actors) shouting "What is your name??," various obscenities, and/or a variety of other messages that would make for a humorous prank call. The major problem is that several of the clips from these movies include violent phrases such as "I am going to destroy you!!" Under the most literal of interpretations, this can be interpreted as sending a life-threatening message over the phone.

Please allow me to re-iterate that no one actually spoke into the phone; all messages that were transmitted were clips from famous movies, and as such it was impossible for whoever made the call to literally make a death-threat to the receiver.

If I may say so, it would take someone with the density of lead to not realize that these messages were not only pre-recorded clips from famous movies, but also intended to be humorous and not actually threatening in any way. However, one person on the receiving end of these calls was most unappreciative and called the cops. The call was traced back to my friend's location where he was then arrested.

The sound boards hosted on the internet site that enable these prank calls, is also the host of several audio clips where others use the same sound board to make humorous prank calls. There is no disclaimer on the site as to legal ramifications if one were to copy this behavior. It is likely that whomever made these prank calls thought that, at most, this activity could result in a slap on the wrist.

My friend was in jail for several days before being bailed out by his family. He currently awaits court, where he may be charged with making death-threats, and could possibly receive several years in prison for (allegedly) playing a simple practical joke by copying a humorous internet website.

To further complicate matters, my friend may not have been the one who was actually performing these prank calls. (In fact, he probably was not.) During the time these calls were made, he was in the house with a friend of his. (Let's call him Roy.) Adam says that Roy was making the prank calls, not him. Adam says he did not assist Roy in any way, whatsoever. Adam says he was merely an observer, and did not condone the actions of his friend, but did not try to physically stop him either.

Now, Adam has no previous record. However, Roy DOES have a previous criminal record. It is a small, non-violent criminal record involving no serious crimes, but it is a criminal record nonetheless. According to Adam, Roy convinced him that if he was caught making these prank calls, that Adam should take the fall. The explanation was, since Adam had no previous record, he would get nothing but a slap on the wrist for such a minor offense. Adam says he agreed to this-- mainly because he didn't think that the police would actually get involved. When the cops really did show up, he felt pressured to say that he was the one responsible for the crime.

Let me reiterate that Adam has essentially told the cops he was guilty of the crime, and that is why he was arrested rather than Roy. However, he has not signed any papers confessing his guilt, nor has he been to been inside a courtroom or talked to a lawyer yet. After speaking to Adam now that he is bailed out, he has told me that he intends to tell (what he says) is the truth to the court: that he did not actually make the prank calls, and that he was pressured into saying he was guilty due to peer pressure.

The story resonates with me. Knowing both Adam and Roy, and how they interact with one another, it seems likely to me that Adam would have been convinced to "take the fall." However, Roy intends to tell the court that Adam was the one making the calls. As well, the owner of the house who was at work during the incident will likely take Roy's side.

My friend needs some major consultation. I don't think it's fair that a few prank calls-- wether or not he was responsible for them-- should be allowed to totally ruin his life and send him to jail, potentially for years. It takes the most maniacal sort of lawyer to manipulate a prank call into a death-threat. Justice will absolutely not be served if anyone is allowed to go to jail for this silly incident.

My specific questions are as follows:
1.) How can Adam prove to the court that he was not the one responsible for the prank calls when 1 (or possibly 2) people will testify that it was him? (Noting that Roy will say so because of the possibility of being charged himself, and that the second could not have known what really happened because he was at work.)

2.) If Adam is indeed responsible, or in the eyes of the court is unable to prove that he is not responsible, what is the best way for him to defend himself? How can he make sure this is seen as a silly prank call, and not a death-threat?

3.) Does the web site that hosts these prank calls and sound boards have any legal responsibility for the situation? Can this website be used to mitigate Adam's responsibility for the calls?

4.) Are there any precedents to this sort of case that can be used as a reference?

5.) Any other advice from someone with legal expertise is welcome, as well as advice from anyone at all.
 


CdwJava

Senior Member
Grim said:
Please allow me to re-iterate that no one actually spoke into the phone; all messages that were transmitted were clips from famous movies, and as such it was impossible for whoever made the call to literally make a death-threat to the receiver.
Yes, but HE was responsible for making the calls.

If I cut letters out of a magazine and spell out "Put all the money in the bag" and show it to a bank teller, I can still get charged with robbery even though I didn't actually SAY a word - or even write it.

The same holds true here. he caused the threat to be delivered. And in most states, the actual intent to follow through on the threat is NOT a requirement - only that the threat was made, the receiving party believed it, and there was the possibility it COULD be carried out (though statutes vary, and without knowing the specific statute he's being charged with, a good examination of the possibilities is not easy).


If I may say so, it would take someone with the density of lead to not realize that these messages were not only pre-recorded clips from famous movies,
And if someone really intended to deliver these threats, what a brilliant way to do it if making pre-recorded threats was NOT a crime!

Sorry, it ain't gonna wash.


but also intended to be humorous and not actually threatening in any way.
I don't know ... I doubt I would take any death threat with a smile. Whether in Arnold's voice or someone else's.


However, one person on the receiving end of these calls was most unappreciative and called the cops. The call was traced back to my friend's location where he was then arrested.
Lesson learned ... only call your close friends and pals. Calling strangers is NOT a good idea.


There is no disclaimer on the site as to legal ramifications if one were to copy this behavior. It is likely that whomever made these prank calls thought that, at most, this activity could result in a slap on the wrist.
Maybe they assumed that nobody would be so dumb ... or, they just didn't care. Besides, it's not the fault of the owner of the website.


To further complicate matters, my friend may not have been the one who was actually performing these prank calls. (In fact, he probably was not.)
Wait ... he did it , and now he didn't. Neat defense. "My client did not do it, but, if he did, it was only a harmless prank."


During the time these calls were made, he was in the house with a friend of his. (Let's call him Roy.) Adam says that Roy was making the prank calls, not him. Adam says he did not assist Roy in any way, whatsoever. Adam says he was merely an observer, and did not condone the actions of his friend, but did not try to physically stop him either.
Too bad Roy used Adam's phone. Now, if he can get Roy to confess to the crime, he may have a good defense. I'm gonna guess here, that good buddy Roy ain't copping to the crime.


Adam says he agreed to this-- mainly because he didn't think that the police would actually get involved. When the cops really did show up, he felt pressured to say that he was the one responsible for the crime.
Ouch! So! They conspired to commit the crime, AND, they KNEW the ramifications of their "prank" ... this sounds less and less like a harmless act of stupidity since now they are discussing the possibility of being arrested for it.


Let me reiterate that Adam has essentially told the cops he was guilty of the crime, and that is why he was arrested rather than Roy. However, he has not signed any papers confessing his guilt,
He 'fessed up to the cops. That's pretty good already.


However, Roy intends to tell the court that Adam was the one making the calls. As well, the owner of the house who was at work during the incident will likely take Roy's side.
Bad news for Adam. I hope he's gonna learn a big lesson from all this.


My friend needs some major consultation. I don't think it's fair that a few prank calls-- wether or not he was responsible for them-- should be allowed to totally ruin his life and send him to jail, potentially for years.
Yeah ... it's oh so much better to be on the receiving end of that kind of crap!

You ever had your life threatened? There are people for whom this kind of stuff is very real and have been threatened before. And a call like this can signal a heck of a lot more to them than a kids' prank.


It takes the most maniacal sort of lawyer to manipulate a prank call into a death-threat. Justice will absolutely not be served if anyone is allowed to go to jail for this silly incident.
Opinions differ. But, chances are he won't go to jail for it ... but he can expect a lengthy probation.


1.) How can Adam prove to the court that he was not the one responsible for the prank calls when 1 (or possibly 2) people will testify that it was him?
The state has to prove it WAS him. He may be able to establish reasonable doubt by arguing it was Roy. However, the state's 2 witnesses may trump the defense's one witness - Adam. And that's IF the defense thinks it is good to put Adam on the stand ... because then he will be subject to examination by the prosecutor who will get him to admit that he confessed to the cops and was present during the whole thing ... AND that he has a motive to lie about not making the calls.

It doesn't look good for Adam.


2.) If Adam is indeed responsible, or in the eyes of the court is unable to prove that he is not responsible, what is the best way for him to defend himself? How can he make sure this is seen as a silly prank call, and not a death-threat?
He needs to ask his lawyer.


3.) Does the web site that hosts these prank calls and sound boards have any legal responsibility for the situation? Can this website be used to mitigate Adam's responsibility for the calls?
No. He can see if he can cona lawyer into suing the website later on, but that darn 1st Amendment thing gets in the way of that sort of thing.

Heck, if they can't remove the Anarchist's Cookbook from the web, I doubt that a prank site will be held liable.


- Carl
 

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
Grim said:
What is the name of your state? Arizona

A friend of mine (let us call him Adam), age 18, who lives in Arizona, was recently arrested for "making threatening phone calls." Allegedly, Adam used a pre-recorded sound board to make life-threatening phone calls.Not Good.


Essentially, the phone was being dialed to a random number, then the handle of the phone was held up to a computer speaker. Then, clips from famous movies were played. Examples include Arnold Shwartzenegger (and other actors) shouting "What is your name??," various obscenities, and/or a variety of other messages that would make for a humorous prank call.Humorous to who?

The major problem is that several of the clips from these movies include violent phrases such as "I am going to destroy you!!" Under the most literal of interpretations, this can be interpreted as sending a life-threatening message over the phone.Now your actually thinking. :rolleyes:

Please allow me to re-iterate that no one actually spoke into the phone; all messages that were transmitted were clips from famous movies, and as such it was impossible for whoever made the call to literally make a death-threat to the receiver. Are you insane? You guys call random numbers and when they pick up you play a stupid immature prank using a voice over?

If I may say so, it would take someone with the density of lead to not realize that these messages were not only pre-recorded clips from famous movies,No it wouldn't, have you ever heard of elderly people, disabled people, and so on? You are sure a brainy one arn't you?

but also intended to be humorous and not actually threatening in any way. That is where your stupid mind is not thinking.

However, one person on the receiving end of these calls was most unappreciative and called the cops. Gee, You think?

The call was traced back to my friend's location where he was then arrested.A nice ending to the story.

The sound boards hosted on the internet site that enable these prank calls, is also the host of several audio clips where others use the same sound board to make humorous prank calls. There is no disclaimer on the site as to legal ramifications if one were to copy this behavior. It is likely that whomever made these prank calls thought that, at most, this activity could result in a slap on the wrist. Where is IAAL when you need him? Sleeping sound I hope, as I will not be around to follow up on this ever so funny post. I will check back in after the holidays, lol.

My friend was in jail for several days before being bailed out by his family. He currently awaits court, where he may be charged with making death-threats, and could possibly receive several years in prison for (allegedly) playing a simple practical joke by copying a humorous internet website. I can't read anymore, it has gotten so stupid.


To further complicate matters, my friend may not have been the one who was actually performing these prank calls. (In fact, he probably was not.) During the time these calls were made, he was in the house with a friend of his. (Let's call him Roy.) Adam says that Roy was making the prank calls, not him. Adam says he did not assist Roy in any way, whatsoever. Adam says he was merely an observer, and did not condone the actions of his friend, but did not try to physically stop him either.

Now, Adam has no previous record. However, Roy DOES have a previous criminal record. It is a small, non-violent criminal record involving no serious crimes, but it is a criminal record nonetheless. According to Adam, Roy convinced him that if he was caught making these prank calls, that Adam should take the fall. The explanation was, since Adam had no previous record, he would get nothing but a slap on the wrist for such a minor offense. Adam says he agreed to this-- mainly because he didn't think that the police would actually get involved. When the cops really did show up, he felt pressured to say that he was the one responsible for the crime.

Let me reiterate that Adam has essentially told the cops he was guilty of the crime, and that is why he was arrested rather than Roy. However, he has not signed any papers confessing his guilt, nor has he been to been inside a courtroom or talked to a lawyer yet. After speaking to Adam now that he is bailed out, he has told me that he intends to tell (what he says) is the truth to the court: that he did not actually make the prank calls, and that he was pressured into saying he was guilty due to peer pressure.

The story resonates with me. Knowing both Adam and Roy, and how they interact with one another, it seems likely to me that Adam would have been convinced to "take the fall." However, Roy intends to tell the court that Adam was the one making the calls. As well, the owner of the house who was at work during the incident will likely take Roy's side.

My friend needs some major consultation. I don't think it's fair that a few prank calls-- wether or not he was responsible for them-- should be allowed to totally ruin his life and send him to jail, potentially for years. It takes the most maniacal sort of lawyer to manipulate a prank call into a death-threat. Justice will absolutely not be served if anyone is allowed to go to jail for this silly incident.

My specific questions are as follows:
1.) How can Adam prove to the court that he was not the one responsible for the prank calls when 1 (or possibly 2) people will testify that it was him? (Noting that Roy will say so because of the possibility of being charged himself, and that the second could not have known what really happened because he was at work.)

2.) If Adam is indeed responsible, or in the eyes of the court is unable to prove that he is not responsible, what is the best way for him to defend himself? How can he make sure this is seen as a silly prank call, and not a death-threat?

3.) Does the web site that hosts these prank calls and sound boards have any legal responsibility for the situation? Can this website be used to mitigate Adam's responsibility for the calls?

4.) Are there any precedents to this sort of case that can be used as a reference?

5.) Any other advice from someone with legal expertise is welcome, as well as advice from anyone at all.
I suggest you all get a life. :rolleyes: Please have your Mommy's take away your phone privledges
 
Last edited:

Grim

Junior Member
To the second reply: For your information, I don't even live in the same state as the person charged with this crime, nor was I responsible in any way for the events that took place.

Now, I came to this site for legal advice for my friend, not to be flamed by some moron who has nothing better to do than laugh at other peoples' misfortune. All replies of yours from this point out shall be summarily ignored.

---

To the first reply: Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. I appreciate the information. I would like to reply to your comments, and ask a few more questions.

I understand your analogy with the bank robber. Indeed, if justice were blind, this loophole would be a way for criminals to avoid responsibility for actual death threats or other harmful messages. However, I am of the belief that common sense and logic should play a part in the interpretation of the law. True justice is tempered with compassion-- the punishment should fit the crime.

This was no terrorist or murderer. This was a teenager copying something they thought was humorous off an internet website. Both of the possible prank-callers are 18 year old boys. There was no harmful intention, nor was any harm actually caused by the prank calls. In my opinion, and in the light of common sense, it would be a perversion justice for someone to go to jail for years for something like this. Prison is a place for people who are not fit to be members of society; that would be so harmful to others that our right to be safe over-rides their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Can you honestly say this incident would qualify someone for that condition? Yes, it was a stupid thing to do, but it's a mistake to be learned from... not a mistake to ruin everything.

Basically, my point has little relevance to the matter at hand. My opinion doesn't matter in the court of law. I can simply hope that the judge follows a similar line of thinking to my own. In that regard, the outcome of the case may be up to the flip of a coin. However, I'd like to be able to offer him whatever advice I can to sway things in his favor.

To further complicate matters, my friend may not have been the one who was actually performing these prank calls. (In fact, he probably was not.)
Wait ... he did it , and now he didn't. Neat defense. "My client did not do it, but, if he did, it was only a harmless prank."
Yeah, that would sound bad in court...

However, if they base their defense entirely around wether or not he was actually responsible for the prank calls or not, they'll be in a bad situation if he's actually convicted... because they haven't argued at all about the severity of the crime or any possible mitigating factors for his responsibility.

As a side note, I wish I knew exactly what crime he will be charged with, but I don't know if that's been decided yet.

I have a few questions regarding this matter which I will post at the bottom of my reply.

Too bad Roy used Adam's phone. Now, if he can get Roy to confess to the crime, he may have a good defense. I'm gonna guess here, that good buddy Roy ain't copping to the crime.
Just to clarify, Roy did not use Adam's phone. The phone belonged to the owner of the house, who was not present at the time.

Ouch! So! They conspired to commit the crime, AND, they KNEW the ramifications of their "prank" ... this sounds less and less like a harmless act of stupidity since now they are discussing the possibility of being arrested for it.
Technically, I suppose it could make Adam complicit with the crime if he agreed to take the fall for it. However, that isn't as serious as actually committing the crime himself, so that would be something important to prove if it's indeed true.

As for "knowing" the ramifications of their "prank"... my point was that they *didn't* know the ramifications of it. To them, it probably seemed about as serious as jaywalking. I can discuss the possibility of being arrested while I'm jaywalking, but that doesn't change the fact that I think it's a relatively harmless act. It's the same with this scenario: they believed that it was harmless, but they knew that it was technically illegal and that there was a remote chance of someone calling the cops on them.

What they DIDN'T expect was that this could become a federal crime rather than a civil one. They were not conspiring to actually harm anymore. Believe me, if they truly knew the severity of the possible outcome of their actions, there's no way they would have done this. By the very definition of "harmless act of stupidity" that's what this was: it didn't harm anyone (other than Adam), and it was stupid.

Yeah ... it's oh so much better to be on the receiving end of that kind of crap!
You ever had your life threatened? There are people for whom this kind of stuff is very real and have been threatened before. And a call like this can signal a heck of a lot more to them than a kids' prank.
I don't believe that the actual distress Adam caused through these phone calls is enough to justify years' worth of jail time. As they say, jail changes people. Putting someone in jail for years when they weren't really a "bad seed" to begin with will result in more harm to society in the long run. A close call with the law this major would *definitely* teach someone a lesson. Putting them in a jail environment for years would be more likely to corrupt them.

I don't wish to force you to argue about with opinion of what the law "should" do, however I felt compelled to respond to some of the things you said. My purpose here is to simply get legal advice for my friend, rather than defending his (alleged) actions in any way. Please don't look at it as starting an argument, but rather stating my opinion about the situation, on the off chance that it can result in better advice for my friend.

Here are my questions...

1.) If he were convicted of this crime, would there be a separate sentencing hearing afterword in which they would be able to argue about wether this was indeed a death-threat, or just a prank call? Or does the judge simply hand down a sentencing in this sort of conviction?

2.) Is there a minimum mandatory time for making a "death threat"?

3.) Would it help if the person who initially made these charges decided to either drop or reduce them? Or since this has the possibility of being prosecuted as a federal crime is that entirely out of their hands?

4.) What possibilities might there be for a plea bargain?
 
S

seniorjudge

Guest
1.) If he were convicted of this crime, would there be a separate sentencing hearing afterword in which they would be able to argue about wether this was indeed a death-threat, or just a prank call? Or does the judge simply hand down a sentencing in this sort of conviction? Ask the lawyer.

2.) Is there a minimum mandatory time for making a "death threat"? Ask the lawyer.

3.) Would it help if the person who initially made these charges decided to either drop or reduce them? Or since this has the possibility of being prosecuted as a federal crime is that entirely out of their hands? If the feds file it, I doubt that there will be any reduction.

4.) What possibilities might there be for a plea bargain? If the feds file it, I doubt that there will be any plea bargain.
 

AHA

Senior Member
For an 18 year old guy he sure doesn't seem to have a life what so ever. Prank calls is something 12-13 year olds do, if even at that old.
If he, at the adult age of 18, don't have anything better to do than maaking kiddie praank calls, he deserves what he gets. I hope he gets a steep fine at the least. Tell him to go out, socialise, make friends, get a girlfriend, get a life going and step away from the computer a few hours every day or he'll end up a very lonely, pale and overweight old man.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top