Murder of President – 18 U.S.C. § 1751 Sentencing Guidelines

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group, a second-generation firm managed by Todd Spodek with over 40 years of combined experience. When federal prosecutors charge murder or attempted murder of the President under 18 U.S.C. § 1751, the stakes couldn’t be higher: death or life imprisonment, no intermediate options. This statute criminalizes not just completed killings but attempts, conspiracies, and assaults against the President, Vice President, President-elect, and designated successors. The constitutional question isn’t whether presidential murders warrant severe punishment—obviously they do. It’s whether the mandatory death/life binary eliminates judicial discretion in ways that violate proportionality principles.

This article explains how § 1751 sentencing works, why attempted presidential murders carry 20-year maximums while completed murders require life or death, and how defense attorneys navigate cases where mental illness, delusion, or political extremism drove conduct that defendants barely understand themselves.

Protected Persons Under § 1751

The statute protects the President, President-elect, Vice President, Vice President-elect, and anyone “otherwise next in order of succession to the Office of the President.” That last category covers designated survivors during State of the Union addresses and successors under the Presidential Succession Act. It also protects immediate family members of the President, Vice President, and President-elect if Secret Service protection extends to them.

Protection doesn’t end with death threats or murder attempts. The statute criminalizes kidnapping and assaults as well. Someone who assaults the President—even without intent to kill—faces up to 10 years. Someone who attempts to kidnap the President faces life imprisonment. The statute treats any violent act toward these officials as an attack on constitutional governance itself, warranting federal prosecution with maximum penalties.

Sentencing: Same as First-Degree Murder

Section 1751 incorporates the penalty structure from 18 U.S.C. § 1111 (murder) and 1112 (manslaughter). If you kill the President with premeditation or during commission of another felony, that’s first-degree murder: death or life imprisonment. If you kill the President in sudden heat of passion or through reckless conduct, that’s voluntary or involuntary manslaughter with correspondingly lower sentences.

Under Federal Sentencing Guidelines §2A1.1, first-degree murder receives offense level 43—the maximum. At that level, every criminal history category yields the same result: life imprisonment if death isn’t imposed. There’s no guideline range calculation, no balancing of factors, no room for judicial discretion. Congress decided presidential murders warrant permanent incapacitation, period.

Attempted murder under § 1751 carries different penalties: up to 20 years imprisonment. Why the distinction? Because attempts—while serious—don’t result in the permanent disruption of government that successful assassinations cause. Someone who fires at the President but misses, or whose bomb fails to detonate, has committed grave crimes. But the constitutional order survived. That survival matters for sentencing purposes, creating space for finite terms rather than mandatory life.

Death Penalty Authorization

The death penalty for presidential murder requires Attorney General authorization. Federal prosecutors can’t unilaterally seek execution—they must submit the case to DOJ’s Capital Case Review Committee, which evaluates aggravating and mitigating factors before recommending whether death should be pursued. The Attorney General makes the final decision.

What factors influence that decision? Prior violence, ideological motivation suggesting future danger, the brutality of the killing, lack of mental illness or intellectual disability, and deterrence value. Prosecutors argue death sentences deter future assassination attempts. Defense attorneys argue they don’t—people who attempt to kill presidents rarely make rational cost-benefit calculations. They’re driven by delusion, fanaticism, or mental illness, none of which responds to deterrence.

The Mental Illness Problem

Presidential assassination attempts often involve profound mental illness. John Hinckley shot President Reagan to impress actress Jodie Foster—a delusion rooted in mental health crisis. Would-be assassins construct elaborate conspiracy theories, hear voices commanding them to act, or experience paranoid delusions where they believe the President poses existential threats. These aren’t rational actors weighing risks and benefits. They’re sick people whose illnesses manifested in violence toward high-profile targets.

Defense attorneys face difficult choices. Insanity defenses rarely succeed in federal court—the standard is high, requiring proof the defendant couldn’t appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or conform behavior to law. But even unsuccessful insanity defenses present mitigation evidence that influences death penalty decisions and, occasionally, persuades judges to vary from guidelines based on diminished capacity.

The challenge: juries and judges struggle to separate mental illness from evil. When someone attempts to kill the President, public outrage runs high. Evidence that the defendant was delusional or schizophrenic might seem like excuse-making rather than explanation. Yet constitutional principles require that punishment reflect culpability—and culpability diminishes when mental illness drove conduct the defendant barely controlled.

Defenses That Actually Work

Impossibility doesn’t negate liability. If you attempt to kill the President but the gun misfires, or Secret Service intervenes, or your plan was never viable—you’re still guilty of attempted murder. The statute punishes intent combined with substantial steps, not just completed acts.

What defenses remain? First, lack of specific intent. Did the defendant actually intend to kill, or were they making threats, engaging in political hyperbole, or acting recklessly without murderous purpose? Prosecutors must prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence that the defendant’s actions were symbolic protests, desperate cries for attention, or reckless without homicidal intent undermines the attempt charge.

Second, mental illness negating mens rea. Even if insanity doesn’t apply, evidence of mental illness can show the defendant lacked capacity to form specific intent to kill. This partial defense might reduce first-degree murder to second-degree or attempted murder to assault—still serious charges, but without mandatory life sentences.

Third, entrapment or coercion. In rare cases, defendants claim government agents or third parties manipulated them into conduct they wouldn’t have pursued independently. These defenses face high bars—courts assume rational actors make independent choices—but when mental illness, youth, or extraordinary pressure exists, entrapment becomes viable.

Todd Spodek built this firm on defending clients that other lawyers wouldn’t touch—cases where media, prosecutors, and public opinion converged before trial began. Presidential murder or attempted murder prosecutions epitomize that dynamic. The charge itself generates headlines, juries want convictions, and judges feel pressure to impose maximum sentences. Our representation of Anna Delvey taught us that defending universally condemned clients requires more than competence. It demands willingness to present mental health evidence that seems like excuse-making, challenge government narratives that seem unassailable, and humanize defendants that prosecutors portray as monsters threatening constitutional order.

If you’re under investigation for or charged with offenses under § 1751, contact us immediately. Federal investigations move quickly once Secret Service establishes protective interest violations. The decisions made in those first hours—whether to speak to agents, whether to accept mental health evaluation, whether to assert defenses that seem futile—determine outcomes. We’re available 24/7 because constitutional rights don’t pause, and presidential security cases don’t wait.