During the trial, the government did not present evidence that the individual defendants directly participated in any acts of vandalism and violence. Instead, the prosecution pointed to web postings by, and video of, the members celebrating the acts and using the word "we" to claim credit for the conduct.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the conviction on October 14, 2009, finding that the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was constitutional on its face and as applied to the defendants. In particular, the court found that links on the SHAC website to tools that facilitated (illegal) virtual sit-ins were clearly intended to incite imminent, lawless conduct, and that such conduct was likely to occur, and thus were not protected speech.

It is not clear whether the defendant's have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Florida state authorities charged Robert Brayshaw with a misdemeanor for violating Fla. Stat. § 843.17 after he anonymously posted the name, address, and telephone number of a Tallahassee Police Department officer on RateMyCop.com.  Section 843.17 prohibits publication of a law enforcement officer's residential address or telephone number with the intent to intimidate, hinder, or interrupt any law enforcement officer in the legal performance of his or her duties.  The Tallahassee police obtained Brayshaw's identity after subpoenaing records from RateMyCop.com and Brayshaw's ISP, according to Wired.

Prosecutors voluntarily dropped the charges on December 9 and then refiled 10 days later, according to an article on RateMyCop.com. The state court judge ultimately dismissed the charges with prejudice for failure to comply with Florida's speedy trial requirements. Brayshaw then filed a complaint in federal court in Florida, seeking a declaration that Section 843.17 violates the First Amendment. According to Brayshaw's complaint, the police officer's name and address are publicly available on the Leon County Clerk of Court's website.  On April 30, 2010, Judge Smoak issued a decision striking down Section 843.17 as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

In June 2009, federal authorities in Chicago charged right-wing New Jersey blogger and Internet radio host Hal Turner with threatening "to assault and murder three United States judges with intent to retaliate against [them] on account of performance of official duties," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B).

Turner wrote postings on June 2 and 3 calling on his readers to take action in response to a ruling issued by a panel of Seventh Circuit judges.  According to the criminal complaint and indictment, Turner wrote that "These judges deserve to be killed" and posted pictures of the judges, their work addresses, and a photo of the federal building where they work.  Turner pled not guilty to the charges.

In September 2009, a federal judge in Chicago transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The trial was then transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn, but with a federal judge from Louisiana -- U.S. District Court Judge Donald Walter of  the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana-- presiding.

The trial, which began December 1, 2009, ended with a mistrial after a day and a half of testimony and a day and a half of deliberations, when the jury announced that it was deadlocked.

The retrial is scheduled to begin March 1, 2010.

Update:

03/10/2010 - The AP reports that the court declared a second mistrial on Wednesday, March 10 due to juror deadlock. 

After anonymous users posted allegedly threatening comments to a Las Vegas Review-Journal (LVRJ) article about an ongoing federal criminal trial (the "Kahre case"), the US Attorney in that case issued a grand jury subpoena seeking information about all public commenters on that thread.  On June 16, 2009, the subpoena was narrowed, seeking personal information related only to two comments from the LVRJ article.

The two comments at issue are as follows:

• "I bid 10 Quatloos that Christoper Maietta [one of the prosecutors in the Kahre case] does not celebrate his next birthday."
• "The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on the jury who will convict him.  They should also be hung along with the feds."

(Amended Mot. to Quash 3).

On June 16, the ACLU of Nevada filed a motion to intervene on behalf of three John Does, along with motions to quash and for a protective order.  On June 22, amended versions of all three motions were filed, and a fourth John Doe was added.  The ACLU maintains that the comments are protected speech under the First Amendment because they are "in no way revealing of any criminal activity."  (Amended Mot. to Quash 3-4.)

On June 18, between the ACLU's initial and amended motions to intervene and quash, the LVRJ complied with the narrowed subpoena and turned over identifying information to the US Attorney's office.  The US Attorney filed a motion to dismiss on June 26, stating that the ACLU's motion to quash was moot.

In its July 13 response to the US Attorney's motion to dismiss, the ACLU claims that the issue is not moot, as the court may still provide the Does with relief despite the LVRJ's compliance with the subpoena.  Specifically, they suggest the court might prevent the use of any information gleaned from the subpoena, order all personal information that resulted from the subpoena be destroyed, and/or issue a protective order to "prevent future abuses of the grand jury subpoena to obtain information about critics of the government's position in the Kahre case."  (Response to Mot. to Dismiss 2.)

Erie, Pennsylvania police officers allegedly threatened Jeremy Orr and/0r his brother with a federal wiretapping charge if he did not remove a video from YouTube.  The video, which was shot in a bar on Orr's cell phone, showed one of the officers, James Cousins, making fun of a recent homicide victim.

In April 2009, Erie Police Chief Steve Franklin  learned of the video. As a result, the department assigned James DeDionisio to determine if Cousins' behavior violated conduct standards. Franklin also asked YouTube to remove the video, because he worried that "[p]eople [would] look at this and say, 'Geez, is that what the Erie cops are like?'" YouTube refused to do so without a request from an original poster.

DeDionisio and Cousins allegedly questioned Orr's brother on April 6 and threatened him with a federal wiretapping violation if he or his brother did not remove the video.  (Orr's brother did not disclose his name to the press out of fear for police reprisals.) DeDionisio and Cousin deny that they issued that threat.

District Attorney Brad Foulk stated that he thought a wire tapping charge under the circumstances "is absolutely preposterous," adding that "I would never consider charging this person with a wiretap violation." The police allegely contacted Foulk's office to request a court order for the removal of the video. Foulk claims that his lead detective told the police "we could not do it and would not do it." 

It appears that to date, no charges have been filed against Orr or his brother.