Donald Day Jr. is facing federal criminal charges in the District of Arizona, including three counts of threatening federal officers, possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon, and unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act. The case arises from a series of statements, social media activity, and a search of Day’s property in Heber, Arizona, where a large number of firearms and ammunition were discovered.
According to the government, Day made numerous statements—both in person and online—that demonstrated his intent, knowledge, and motives relevant to the crimes charged. After his arrest, he made statements to FBI agents that included threats against law enforcement and admissions regarding his connection to the property and the firearms found there. The prosecution notes that Day referred to a specific room on the property as the “gun room,” and in a recorded jail call, he admitted to having sawed off the shotgun at the center of the NFA charge.
Day maintained an online presence through platforms like YouTube and BitChute, using aliases such as “Geronimo’s bones” and “wearealldeadasfuck.” In his online videos and commentaries, he expressed admiration for violent resistance to law enforcement, including statements indicating that he wished he had been present to help the Trains—a family in Australia known for killing two police officers in an anti-government ambush in Wieambilla, Queensland, on December 12, 2022. He also posted content advocating violence against public figures such as the Director of the World Health Organization. The government does not allege that Day had any direct involvement in the Australian murders but intends to introduce limited evidence about the incident to help establish Day’s motive and state of mind. The court has already approved a limiting instruction to prevent unfair prejudice on this point.
The government is opposing several of Day’s evidentiary motions. First, Day sought to exclude or “sanitize” evidence containing offensive or inflammatory language, such as calling law enforcement officers “devils” or “demons.” The government argues that these statements are critical to understanding the defendant’s mindset and establishing that the threats he made were genuine and not just hyperbole or fantasy. Removing the context and tone of his original language would, the government contends, impair the jury’s ability to properly evaluate the evidence.
Second, Day requested that the government be limited to using only photographs of the firearms and ammunition seized, rather than presenting the physical weapons at trial. His legal team argued that the physical evidence would be unduly prejudicial. The government responded that the sheer number and visibility of the weapons found in open areas of the property is probative of Day’s knowledge and intent. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Old Chief v. United States, the prosecution acknowledged that certain types of prejudice must be avoided but argued that Old Chief does not give defendants the right to stipulate away the full evidentiary weight of the prosecution’s case. In this instance, Day has not entered any formal stipulation or plea that would eliminate the need for the government to prove possession.
Third, the government objected to Day’s attempt to introduce his own out-of-court statements—specifically, a calm recorded message he left for his girlfriend after his arrest, in which he urged her to cooperate with authorities. The government characterizes this as inadmissible hearsay, citing well-established federal evidence rules and Ninth Circuit precedent. A defendant, the government emphasized, cannot introduce his own exculpatory statements at trial unless he testifies. The rule of completeness under Federal Rule of Evidence 106 does not provide an exception in this case, because the portions of the statements the defense seeks to admit do not correct any misleading impression created by the government’s evidence.
Finally, the prosecution asserts that it will selectively introduce only the relevant and admissible portions of Day’s post-arrest statements, online activity, and jail communications to demonstrate the elements of the crimes charged. The government’s approach is focused on showing Day’s knowledge of his legal status as a convicted felon, his intent to possess the firearms and ammunition, and his motive and state of mind in making the alleged threats. The United States Attorney’s Office urges the court to deny the defendant’s motion in limine in its entirety.
Source: United States v. Donald Day Jr., No. CR-23-08132-PCT-JJT (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2025)