Replies

He is in trouble. Oklahoma has a generous law about blackmail, which makes it easy to prosecute.

“Blackmail is verbally or by written or printed communication and with intent to extort or gain any thing of value from another or to compel another to do an act against his or her will:

“Accusing or threatening to accuse any person of a crime or conduct which would tend to degrade and disgrace the person accused;

“Exposing or threatening to expose any fact, report or information concerning any person which would in any way subject such person to the ridicule or contempt of society”.

(The other parts of the statute do not apply.)

I agree with the opinion below that the statute is written very generously in favor of the state which makes conviction “easy”.

However, there are at least two big problems with this case.
He doesn’t threaten to expose anything in particular. It’s just a promise to do what any politician already expects (either does or should) of a competent political adversary. The fear of a disgruntled constituent or political adversary digging up dirt just goes with the territory of public office, and should come as no surprise to anyone. If the email referenced something very detailed like a known crime or deviant act along with a demand for money or individual favor then maybe it would be a good case.
But these facts have only to do with a citizen wanting public policy that affects all to be addressed. And there’s nothing mentioned that would be revealed or done that isn’t already commonplace and expected.

Lastly, the best defense here is that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and broad under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
The statute as written easily captures a whole range of speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment.

If I were his attorney I would start with the constitutional deficiencies of the statute and be certain to preserve that error for appeal. If that argument fails at the trial level then I would craft a whole laundry list of scenarios whereby harsh, disrespectful, and challenging language (all protected speech) could be criminalized if you mess with the elite.
I don’t see an Oklahoma jury going for it if the defense attorney plays the narrative right.

That said, if I were the judge I would probably strike down that statute for being unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.