Dist.Ct. did not err in denying defendant-prisoner’s habeas petition challenging his Wisconsin conviction on stalking charge that stemmed from defendant sending two separate letters to jurors who had previously found defendant guilty of threatening two Wisconsin judges, where several jurors found said letters to be either threatening or disturbing. Record contained sufficient evidence to support stalking conviction, where letters, which reminded jurors that they had helped put defendant in prison, asked them if he could reveal their identities to other inmates, emphasized his mistreatment in prison and his placement in mental institutions and requested that they “do the right thing” by mailing questionnaire to Prison Advisory Board to support his pardon request, satisfied objective standard that reasonable person in position of instant jurors would have understood said letters to be threatening, and that defendant was on notice that jurors would suffer serious emotional distress because of his communications. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that Wisconsin stalking statute violated his First Amendment rights by punishing him for unintentional threats, or that instant jury instructions misstated appropriate “true threat” standard under Wisconsin law.
