Jury Deadlocks in Federal Threats Case Against Man
A federal jury in Oakland could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether a man's messages to a federal judge amounted to a true threat.
Updated on Nov. 11, 2026 in Law
A federal jury declared a mistrial in the case against a man from the Bay Area accused of making death threats against U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. The jurors were unable to agree unanimously on whether the messages met the legal standard of a true threat under federal criminal law.
Why it matters
The case tests where constitutionally protected speech ends and a criminal threat begins when the target is a sitting federal judge. The alleged threats followed Judge Breyer's decision blocking President Donald Trump from deploying the state National Guard, placing the case at the intersection of judicial independence and political pressure on the courts.
The defendant remains a party to an active federal criminal case after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the threats charge. The extraction does not state whether prosecutors will seek a retrial or what the next court date will be.
The players
Charles Breyer
Charles Breyer is a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California who blocked President Donald Trump from deploying the state National Guard.
Donald Trump
Donald Trump is the current President of the United States, whose attempt to deploy the state National Guard was blocked by Judge Breyer.
The details
Prosecutors allege that the man sent 11 emails last year to the media address of the Northern District of California's federal court, containing threats directed at Judge Charles Breyer. The jury was asked to decide whether those messages met the legal definition of a true threat, and it did not reach a unanimous answer.
Timeline
Last year: the alleged emails were sent to the court's media address.
Tuesday, November 10, 2026: the federal jury declared a mistrial.
Legal Context
The case turns on the true-threat standard the Supreme Court articulated in Virginia v. Black, which requires a communication that a reasonable person would view as a serious expression of intent to commit violence. Threats against federal judges are prosecuted under federal law, and this deadlock shows how that standard can divide jurors.
Federal courts in the Bay Area continue to handle threats against judges, and this case shows that a deadlocked jury leaves the outcome open. Residents who follow federal court proceedings in Oakland can track whether prosecutors pursue a retrial.
The takeaway
A hung jury does not mean acquittal, and cases involving threats against judges can remain open for months. Readers who want to understand how such cases proceed can watch federal dockets for retrial filings.
Further reading
For more on how courts handle cases like this, see the Law section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Bloomberglaw.
