The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Brandon Hayward's conviction for making threatening interstate communications to credit union employees, rejecting his appeal in an unpublished per curiam opinion filed Jan. 9, 2026.
Hayward was convicted following a jury trial on two counts of knowingly transmitting in interstate commerce a threat to injure the person of another, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The charges stemmed from threatening phone calls he made to employees of his credit union.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Roanoke, where District Judge Robert S. Ballou presided over the criminal proceedings. Hayward was represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office, with Mary Maguire, Federal Public Defender, and Erin Trodden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, handling his defense. The government was represented by Acting United States Attorney Zachary T. Lee and Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Jones.
On appeal, Hayward raised two primary arguments challenging his conviction. First, he contended that the district court erred in excluding his testimony regarding his mental illness. According to court documents, Hayward sought to testify that he could not fully recall making the threatening statements because he was severely mentally ill at the time of the incidents.
Hayward argued that this proffered testimony was relevant to both his mens rea—the mental state required for criminal liability—and his credibility as a witness. The exclusion of this testimony, he maintained, prejudiced his defense and violated his right to present evidence in his favor.
The defendant's second argument centered on the district court's refusal to give his requested jury instruction on unconscious bias. While the court documents do not detail the specific nature of the proposed instruction, such requests typically seek to alert jurors to potential unconscious prejudices that might influence their deliberations.
The Fourth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, Barbara Milano Keenan, and Andre M. Davis, reviewed these arguments after the case was submitted on Dec. 10, 2025. The court issued its decision affirming the conviction without providing detailed reasoning in the unpublished opinion.
The federal statute under which Hayward was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), criminalizes the knowing transmission of threats in interstate commerce. This law gives federal courts jurisdiction over threatening communications that cross state lines, including phone calls, emails, and other forms of electronic communication.
To secure a conviction under this statute, prosecutors must prove that the defendant knowingly transmitted a communication containing a threat to injure another person and that the communication traveled in interstate commerce. The law does not require that the defendant intended to carry out the threat, only that the communication was transmitted knowingly.
The case highlights the intersection of mental health issues and criminal responsibility in federal court. While defendants may present evidence of mental illness in various contexts, courts must balance the relevance of such evidence against other considerations, including the requirements of the applicable criminal statute and rules of evidence.
Hayward's conviction involved threatening communications directed at credit union employees, reflecting the serious nature of workplace harassment and threats. Financial institutions and their employees are often targets of threatening communications from disgruntled customers, leading to federal prosecution when such communications cross state lines.
The Fourth Circuit's affirmance means Hayward's conviction stands, and he faces the consequences of his federal criminal conviction under § 875(c). The statute carries potential penalties including fines and imprisonment, though the specific sentence imposed in Hayward's case was not detailed in the available court documents.
This case represents one of numerous federal prosecutions for interstate threatening communications, as law enforcement and prosecutors increasingly pursue criminal charges against individuals who make threats via phone, email, or social media platforms that cross state boundaries.
The unpublished nature of the Fourth Circuit's opinion means it does not establish binding precedent for future cases in the circuit. However, it reflects the court's continued enforcement of federal laws governing threatening interstate communications.
The case number 24-4368 indicates that Hayward's appeal was filed in 2024, with the Fourth Circuit resolving the matter within approximately one year of the appeal's initiation. The relatively swift resolution suggests the court viewed the legal issues as straightforward, warranting affirmance without extended deliberation or a published opinion explaining the reasoning in detail.