Intimidation and retaliation are distinct charges that are often confused. Intimidation and retaliation are often charged in the same set of circumstances. The differences between these two charges are important to distinguish when building a strong defense.
Intimidation tries to stop someone from doing something.
Intimidation is conduct that interferes (obstructing, preventing, impairing) with the administration of justice by causing the person intimidated to refrain from reporting, to give false information, to withhold information, or to disregard a legal summons to appear regarding a criminal matter.
Retaliation is an action that gets back at someone for what they already did.
Retaliation is an action that harms another by engaging in conduct that threatens another for anything lawfully done in the capacity of a witness, victim, or party.
Intimidation can be satisfied by a single threat, retaliation cannot.
The Supreme court in 2006 rejected the prosecution’s claim that the harm proscribed by § 4953 could be satisfied by a single threat or unlawful act. The court stated:
“While there is no doubt that a single threat is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of other criminal provisions, in order to satisfy the specific requirements of the retaliation statute, multiple threats are necessary.”
The fact that retaliation requires “multiple threats” must to be explained to the judge and jury. Having a knowledgeable and savvy attorney make the correct arguments at trial could be the difference between a not-guilty verdict and a conviction.
