Two men accused of deterring Black voters in Metro Detroit from voting by mail in the 2020 general election each received a year of probation Monday, concluding a case that wound its way through Michigan’s court system for five years.
Conservative activists John Burkman, 59, and Jacob Wohl, 27, both of Virginia, were accused of financing a 2020 robocall that claimed recipients who voted by mail would have their information entered into a database that could track people with warrants, collect on credit card debt or find people for mandatory vaccines. They allegedly created and disseminated as many as 12,000 robocalls in 2020 to residents of Metro Detroit to discourage mail-in voting.
In a statement to the court, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the right to vote one “that must be protected with unwavering commitment,” and said Burkman and Wohl “used every racist dog whistle imaginable” to intimidate Black voters.
“The African American community has endured generations of discrimination and systemic racism as it pertains to voting,” she said.
The men pleaded no contest last summer to four felonies each: One count of bribing or intimidating voters, one count of conspiracy to do the same and two counts of using a computer to commit a crime. Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Margaret Van Houten imposed their sentences Monday morning, following an agreement reached between prosecutors and the men’s defense attorneys.
Burkman and Wohl appeared virtually Monday sitting side-by-side. Their attorneys also appeared on Zoom.
Nessel sought to paint Burkman and Wohl’s actions as part of a calculated campaign to intimidate voters that reached into other states. However, parts of Nessel’s speech ran into challenges from the men’s attorneys. Nessel admitted she was citing information from news articles, and Van Houten said the allegations from other states for which the men have not faced criminal charges weren’t relevant.
Authorities in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois reported similar robocalls in urban areas with significant Black populations. Investigators allege more than 85,000 of these messages were sent nationwide.
Burkman and Wohl pleaded guilty in 2022 to one count each of telecommunications fraud in Ohio.
Van Houten also warned Nessel that speculation the men have showed signs of sociopathic behavior was not relevant, since their pre-sentence investigations did not find evidence of mental disorders.
Neither of the men offered statements. Their attorneys each asked Van Houten to consider they have been under court supervision for five years since the inception of their cases, and that neither has gotten into more legal trouble since.
Burkman’s attorney, Scott Grabel, said he didn’t mean to downplay that the robocall was unacceptable. But he noted Burkman has no previous criminal history, and said Burkman has paid for his actions, noting a civil case against him in New York. The pair agreed in 2024 to pay up to $1.25 million under a settlement agreement reached with Attorney General Letitia James, according to the Associated Press.
“I can tell you he regrets this robocall deeply. It has cost him a lot,” Grabel told the judge.
Bill Amadeo, Burkman’s attorney, did not speak at length. He echoed Grabel in mentioning his client has been under court-ordered supervision for several years now, and asked Van Houten to abide by the one-year probation sentence agreed on.
“I ask that you follow the (agreement), thank you,” he said.
Van Houten agreed to impose the sentence negotiated between prosecutors and the defense attorneys, noting Wohl and Burkman are first-time offenders in Michigan and she didn’t have a reason to deviate from the agreement. But she said she still had concerns they might engage in this kind of behavior again, and she made clear she believed the robocall was an intentional effort to chill Black residents from voting.
“When I first read about this case, I was appalled by the robocall. It is clearly an attempt to suppress minority votes in the city of Detroit,” Van Houten said.
She said her choice not to impose a harsher sentence than the attorneys agreed on shouldn’t be taken as minimizing the seriousness of Burkman and Wohl’s actions.
“That doesn’t mean I don’t think this was a serious offense,” she said.
The cases against Burkman and Wohl have wound up and down through Michigan’s trial and appeals courts for several years. They challenged their cases being sent to circuit court, arguing their actions didn’t meet the legal threshold trying to incluence votes by “bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device” needed to bring the charge. They also argued, if their actions did meet that threshold, the law violated their constitutional right to free speech.
The Michigan Court of Appeals declined to hear the case at first, but the Michigan Supreme Court sent it back down to hear arguments. The Court of Appeals found the attorney general’s office used the statute in a constitutionally appropriate way.
Burkman and Wohl appealed that ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court, which affirmed the validity of the statute and sent the case back to the Court of Appeals to rule on whether Burkman and Wohl’s actions should be considered constitutionally protected speech.
jcardi@detroitnews.com
