In a high-profile ruling out of the District of Arizona, a federal judge has decided that the government may present limited but impactful evidence connecting Donald Day Jr., an Arizona man charged with threatening law enforcement, to a notorious police shooting that took place halfway across the globe.
The case, United States v. Donald Day, Jr., centers on a video Day allegedly posted on December 16, 2022, in which he is accused of threatening to kill any law enforcement officer who might enter his rural property in Heber, Arizona. The government argues that Day’s statement was more than just online bluster: it was a reaction to a violent event involving his online associates, Gareth and Stacey Train, who ambushed and murdered two police officers and a neighbor four days earlier in Wieambilla, Queensland, Australia.
The Trains, who lived off-grid on a remote property in Queensland, held anti-government and anti-police views they frequently shared online. In the year and a half before the December 12, 2022 shooting, they communicated extensively with Day via video messages and texts, discussing everything from religion and politics to violent resistance against law enforcement. The final message from the Trains—posted hours after the killings—ended with a chilling note: “See you at home, Don. Love you.”
Following the shooting and subsequent death of the Trains in a second gunfight with Australian authorities, Day posted a video that forms the basis of the charges against him. In response, the government sought to introduce evidence from the Wieambilla incident to help prove Day’s motive and intent.
Day filed a motion in limine to block or severely limit this evidence, arguing that the graphic and inflammatory nature of the Trains’ killings could lead jurors to unfairly convict him by association. He asked the court to restrict references to the shooting to a sterile summary, strip away emotionally charged language, and allow only one witness to testify about the incident. He claimed the risk of unfair prejudice outweighed the relevance of the Wieambilla facts.
But Judge John J. Tuchi disagreed—at least in part. In a detailed ruling issued on March 31, 2025, Judge Tuchi found that while the court must guard against prejudice, the government had shown that the Wieambilla events were directly relevant to Day’s state of mind when he posted the alleged threat.
The court will allow the government to present testimony from Australian law enforcement officers, introduce communications between Day and the Trains, and show certain photographs of the Trains’ property—specifically images of tactical “hides,” a gate frequently referenced in their communications, and surveillance positions. The judge ruled that these items were probative of Day’s intent and his shared hostility toward law enforcement.
However, the court placed key limits. Witnesses may not use emotionally charged terms like “ambush” or “murder” to describe the killings. The jury will hear neutral, factual descriptions of the shootings, and Judge Tuchi will give a firm limiting instruction clarifying that Day was not involved in the shootings, had never been to Australia, and may not be judged based on similarities in lifestyle or property layout.
The judge also ruled that communications about religion and politics between Day and the Trains would be excluded unless directly relevant to their shared animus toward law enforcement.
This ruling allows the government to link Day’s threat to a real-world act of violence committed by his ideological allies, while also safeguarding the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The decision reflects a careful balancing act between probative value and potential prejudice in an era where virtual relationships and radical ideologies can spill into real-world violence.
Source: United States v. Donald Day, Jr., No. CR-23-08132-PCT-JJT (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2025).