Elonis next challenged the sufficiency of his indictment because it did not specifically include the allegedly threatening statements. The Third Circuit found the indictment sufficient because it notified Elonis of the elements of the offense, the nature of the threat, the subject of the threat and the time of the violation.
Additionally, Elonis challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction on two specific counts of the indictment. One count involved a conditional threat. The circuit court held that there is no rule that a conditional statement is not a true threat, if the words and the context of the statement show a serious expression of intent to cause harm. For the second challenge, Elonis argued that the threat suggested past conduct, not a future intent to harm. Although the statement referenced a past bomb, it also threatened the use of explosives against law enforcement “the next time” they knocked on his door. A reasonable jury could find that the expressed intent to use explosives in the future constituted a true threat.