Whether the appellate standard of review of a jury's determination that a particular expression constitutes a 'true threat' should be deferential or de novo

QUESTION PRESENTED A jury’s determination that a particular expression constitutes a “true threat” takes it outside the First Amendment. The consequence is that the state may imprison a speaker simply for uttering it. The question presented is the appellate standard of review of that pivotal determination, an issue that has divided the Courts of Appeals. Is the factfinder’s decision on the true-threat question reviewed deferentially, under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), as the Second Circuit held here (and as the First, Third, and Tenth Circuits have held elsewhere); or is it instead reviewed anew and upon an independent examination of the whole record by the appellate court, under the First Amendment “independent review” or “constitutional fact” doctrine, see Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 505-06 (1984), as the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held. i