The Alaska Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Michael Jared Henderson for threatening a witness during a bail hearing for his son. The court's decision, issued on October 16, 2026, confirms that Henderson's comments constituted a serious threat and were not protected speech under the First Amendment. This ruling impacts how threats made during legal proceedings are treated in Alaska, emphasizing the seriousness of such actions.

Henderson was convicted of interference with an official proceeding after he threatened to kill Katrina Johnson, a witness, during a telephonic bail hearing in which his son, Isaac Henderson, was involved. The case raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech, particularly in the context of legal proceedings.

Background

The case stems from a tragic family incident in December 2021, when Isaac Henderson shot and killed his brother, Tyler. Following this incident, Isaac was charged with first-degree murder and third-degree assault. During a bail hearing on February 1, 2022, various parties, including Henderson, participated via phone. The hearing became contentious, with Henderson interrupting the judge multiple times, expressing his frustration over the proceedings.

During the bail hearing, Henderson made a direct threat against Johnson, stating, "I'm going to kill Katrina Johnson." This comment was heard by both the prosecutor and Johnson herself, leading to concerns for her safety. Subsequently, Henderson was indicted on charges of interference with official proceedings and second-degree terroristic threatening, although the latter charge was later dismissed.

The Ruling

The Alaska Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Allard and Judges Wollenberg and Harbison, ruled on Henderson's appeal, which raised several claims. Henderson argued that the jury instructions did not adequately define a "true threat" and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

The court ruled, "The jury instructions that were given in this particular case adequately incorporated the concept of a 'true threat.'"

Furthermore, the court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Henderson's conviction. The judges noted that Henderson's comments were made in a context where they could reasonably be interpreted as a serious expression of intent to inflict harm. The court stated, "The evidence had shown that Mr. Henderson had collected himself by the time he said he was going to kill Katrina Johnson," highlighting that he was aware of the implications of his words.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the legal principle that threats made during official proceedings are taken seriously and can have significant legal consequences. The court's decision clarifies that speech perceived as a threat, especially in a judicial context, is not protected under the First Amendment if it is intended to intimidate or retaliate against witnesses.

The ruling may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the definition of "true threats" and the standards for jury instructions in cases involving speech. It emphasizes the need for individuals to be aware of the potential repercussions of their words, especially in sensitive legal environments.

What's Next

Henderson's conviction can potentially be appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, although details regarding any further legal actions were not available in the court filing. This case remains significant as it addresses the intersection of free speech rights and the integrity of judicial proceedings.