Political Rants or Death Threats? Jury Decides

A Las Vegas man who claimed his violent threats against judges and prosecutors were merely “political rants” learned the hard way that the First Amendment does not shield criminal conduct, exposing how media-fueled outrage can spiral into federal convictions.

Story Snapshot

Spencer Gear convicted on 20 of 22 counts for threatening federal officials and state employees with explicit violence between 2023 and 2024.
Targets included Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and judges overseeing Trump-related cases, with threats spanning January 6 debates, border policy, and transgender issues.
Defense argued media echo chambers turned frustration into hyperbolic rants; prosecutors proved explicit death threats crossed legal boundaries.
Gear faces up to 10 years per count on nine charges, with sentencing pending after his February 2026 conviction.

Echo Chamber Radicalization Fuels Federal Charges

Spencer Christjencody Gear transformed from a Las Vegas student barred from school over vaccination status into a self-described “conservative political activist” consuming content from Alex Jones, Dan Bongino, and Steve Bannon. Between 2023 and 2024, Gear made approximately a dozen threatening calls and emails to eight federal officials and three state employees across multiple states. His targets included high-profile figures tied to former President Trump’s legal battles, such as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Judge Juan Merchan, and Judge Lewis Kaplan. Gear admitted during trial testimony that he impulsively reacted to articles by “vomiting out” frustrations, likening himself to being “infected” by political rhetoric from both sides of the aisle.

Violent Threats Disguised as Political Speech

Prosecutors Daniel Schiess and Jacob Operskalski presented evidence showing Gear’s communications contained explicit plans for violence, not mere political hyperbole. Gear’s threats addressed heated national debates over January 6 defendants, border enforcement, and transgender policies, but crossed into criminal territory with detailed descriptions of assault and murder. Federal Public Defender Rebecca Levy argued Gear was “drowning in fear and stress,” pointing to political echo chambers that reward outrage, similar to rhetoric seen on platforms like Truth Social. However, testimony from victims including Bragg, Merchan, Kaplan, and U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro highlighted the genuine fear these threats instilled, undermining the defense’s portrayal of harmless ranting.

Jury Rejects First Amendment Defense

After a six-day trial concluding February 24, 2026, a federal jury convicted Gear on 20 counts while acquitting him on two charges related to Representative Castro. The convictions included nine counts of threatening federal officials, each carrying up to 10 years imprisonment, and 11 counts of transmitting threats with maximum five-year sentences. U.S. Attorney Summer Johnson emphasized that while the First Amendment protects robust political discourse, it does not shield threats that cross legal boundaries. Gear’s inconsistent testimony, including memory lapses and contradictory statements about his support for Trump, weakened his credibility. The verdict reinforces that legitimate policy frustrations cannot justify explicit violent threats against public servants.

Implications for Political Discourse Boundaries

This conviction arrives amid rising threats against public officials in a polarized political environment, setting a precedent for prosecuting online and phone-based threats as “true threats” beyond protected speech. The case demonstrates how consuming extremist media without critical filtering can lead individuals down dangerous paths with severe legal consequences. While many Americans share frustrations over border security failures, government overreach, and politicized prosecutions, expressing those concerns through violent threats undermines constitutional principles and hands ammunition to those seeking to silence conservative voices. Gear’s case serves as a cautionary tale about maintaining lawful advocacy channels rather than allowing justified anger over leftist policies to manifest as criminal conduct that damages the broader movement.

The Department of Justice and FBI investigated the multi-state threat campaign, with Special Agent in Charge Christopher S. noting victims took Gear’s communications seriously enough to warrant federal intervention. Gear remains detained pending sentencing, facing potentially decades in prison for conduct he claimed was merely venting frustration. His conviction strengthens federal protections for judiciary members and prosecutors while likely increasing DOJ scrutiny of threat cases tied to national political controversies. The partial acquittal on Castro-related charges suggests juries can distinguish between varying threat levels, but the overwhelming guilty verdicts confirm that explicit violence plans cannot be rebranded as political commentary regardless of the speaker’s claimed motivations or media diet.