How serious is threatening prosecutor

| by Max Soni

Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group – a second-generation law firm managed by Todd Spodek. We have over 40 years of combined experience handling federal criminal cases. Our work defending Anna Delvey landed on Netflix, we represented the juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell misconduct case, and we’ve handled matters involving high-profile figures like Alec Baldwin.

Threatening a prosecutor is one of the most serious federal crimes you can commit. This article covers what 18 USC 115 actually says, the prison time you’re facing, recent 2025 cases with real sentences, and why federal prosecutors treat these charges differently than almost anything else.

The statute and penalties

Threatening a federal prosecutor falls under 18 USC 115, which protects federal officials and their families from threats intended to impede their work or retaliate for their official duties. The maximum sentence is 10 years in federal prison for threats of kidnapping or murder – 6 years for threats of assault. Real sentences in 2025 show federal judges aren’t going light on these cases.

Nathanael Michael West, 28, was serving time in an Idaho state prison when he mailed threatening letters to Assistant U.S. Attorney David Robins in February 2023. The letter contained what prosecutors described as “graphic descriptions” of how he planned to assault, kidnap, torture, and murder the federal prosecutor. A month later, West sent another letter to Chief U.S. District Judge David C. Nye with “vivid” threats to assault and murder the judge.

On July 31, 2025, a federal judge sentenced West to 96 months – 8 years in federal prison. He’ll serve three years of supervised release after that. West had threatened state prosecutors in 2020 and 2022. The pattern shows what federal judges see: someone who won’t stop.

Recent cases show the DOJ means business

West isn’t an outlier. The Justice Department has prosecuted approximately 400 cases involving threats to public servants in the past two years.

Dempsey Emmanuel Gilmore, a 33-year-old from Tampa, went to trial at the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse. After the jury returned its verdict, Gilmore “lunged at” the Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting his case and threatened to kill her – right there in federal court. He was sentenced on August 15, 2024, to six years and five months in federal prison, consecutive to a 30-year sentence he was already serving.

Stanislav Yelizarov made his threat over a recorded prison telephone line on March 23, 2024. He told someone he intended to kill an Assistant U.S. Attorney’s “whole family.” He faces up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted.

Taylor Ryan Hill mailed a threatening letter to the prosecutor who had convicted him for murder. The letter threatened to have both the prosecutor and the sentencing judge killed. Hill was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison.

Real people – with names, dates, sentences – who thought they could threaten prosecutors and found out how wrong they were.

What actually counts as a threat

Federal prosecutors don’t need to prove you intended to carry out the threat. They need to prove you knowingly communicated something a reasonable person would view as a threat, and that you intended to impede the prosecutor’s work or retaliate against them for doing their job.

Threats can come in many forms – letters from prison, phone calls (even recorded prison lines), emails, social media posts, or face-to-face confrontations in courtrooms. 18 USC 115 covers threats to the prosecutor themselves and their immediate family members. It also applies to former federal officials. The statute defines “United States official” broadly – prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers, and other high-ranking government employees.

Why sentences vary – aggravating factors matter

The sentencing range is wide. Taylor Hill got 30 months. Nathanael West got 96 months. Dempsey Gilmore got more than 6 years on top of an existing 30-year sentence. What explains the difference?

Prior criminal history matters enormously. West was labeled a “career offender” – he had threatened prosecutors before, multiple times. The nature of the threat itself drives sentencing. Vague statements are treated differently than graphic, detailed descriptions of torture and murder.

Threatening family members is an aggravating factor. Yelizarov didn’t just threaten the prosecutor – he threatened to kill the prosecutor’s “whole family.” Targeting children or spouses shows a willingness to go after innocent people.

Making threats while incarcerated weighs heavily. You’re in custody, facing consequences, and you still send threatening letters. That demonstrates you’re undeterred by the criminal justice system. Physical actions escalate everything. Gilmore physically lunged at the prosecutor in a courtroom – that split-second decision showed judges he was willing to follow through.

The 2025 enforcement environment

Federal prosecutors and judges are facing an unprecedented wave of threats. The Department of Justice has noted “a dangerous increase in threats of violence” directed at federal and state officials, judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers. DOJ leadership has made prosecuting threats a priority – the 400 prosecutions over the past two years reflect that directive in action.

When you threaten a prosecutor in 2025, you’re contributing to a documented pattern that’s making it harder for federal officials to do their jobs without fearing for their safety. Judges take that into account during sentencing.

Why you need experienced defense counsel immediately

If you’re charged under 18 USC 115, the government’s case will likely be strong. These threats are usually documented – letters, recorded phone calls from prison, emails with metadata. Federal prosecutors don’t bring these cases lightly. Your best chance isn’t hoping they drop the charges – it’s having an experienced federal criminal defense attorney who understands what arguments actually persuade judges during sentencing.

Even if you think the threat wasn’t serious, or you were just venting – none of that matters under federal law. The standard is whether a reasonable person would perceive it as a threat, not whether you intended to carry it out. Saying “I was just angry” won’t get the case dismissed.

At Spodek Law Group, we’ve handled federal cases that others said were unwinnable – that’s one reason clients choose us. Our managing partner, Todd Spodek, is a second-generation criminal defense lawyer with many, many years of experience successfully handling hundreds of criminal defense cases.

We know that threatening a prosecutor often happens in a moment of anger or frustration – maybe you just got convicted, maybe you’re sitting in a cell feeling hopeless. But acting on that anger by making threats creates a new case, new charges, and new prison time stacked on top of whatever you’re already facing.

If you’ve already been charged, the focus shifts to mitigation. What circumstances led to the threat? An experienced attorney can present these factors in a way that might reduce your sentence.

If you’re being investigated but not yet charged, you need a lawyer immediately. Do not talk to FBI agents or federal investigators without counsel. Anything you say will be used to build the case against you.

We represent clients coast-to-coast in federal criminal matters, and we’re available 24/7. Contact us now. The earlier we get involved, the more options you have. Unlike other law firms who care about their reputation with prosecutors and judges, our only goal is getting you the best outcome.