Johnson v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | Nos. C 09–3064–MWB, CR 01–3046–MWB.,s. C 09–3064–MWB, CR 01–3046–MWB. |
| Parties | Angela JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
860 F.Supp.2d 663
82 Fed.R.Serv.3d 128
Angela JOHNSON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
Nos. C 09–3064–MWB, CR 01–3046–MWB.
United States District Court,
N.D. Iowa,
Central Division.
March 22, 2012.
[860 F.Supp.2d 676]
Marcia A. Morrissey, Santa Monica, CA, Michael Burt, Law Office of Michael Burt, Mohammad Ali Hamoudi, Nancy S. Pemberton, Pemberton & Associates, San Francisco, CA, Michael Edward Lawlor, Lawlor & Englert, LLC, Greenbelt, MD, Ilann M. Maazel, Kennisha A. Austin, Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Charles J. Williams, U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Respondent.
MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.
+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS ¦
+-------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦I. ¦INTRODUCTION ¦682 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Factual Background ¦682 ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Criminal Proceedings ¦685 ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦C. ¦Section 2255 Proceedings ¦688 ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦D. ¦Summary Of Claims ¦692 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦II. ¦VIABILITY OF “NEW” CLAIMS IN JOHNSON'S SECOND AND THIRD AMENDED § 2255 MOTIONS ¦697 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦“New” Claims In The Second Amended § 2255 Motion ¦697 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦697 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦The respondent's argument ¦697 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦The petitioner's argument ¦697 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦The respondent's reply ¦699 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Analysis ¦700 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Deadlines for § 2255 claims ¦700 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Timeliness of amendments ¦706 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Rule 15(a) ¦706 ¦
+---+---+---+---+------+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦Rule 15(b) ¦710 ¦
+---+---+---+---+------+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii. ¦Rule 15(c) and “relation back.” ¦713 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Application of the standards ¦715 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Preliminary matters ¦715 ¦
+---+---+---+---+-----+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦The challenged claims ¦716 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B. ¦The ‘New’ Claim In The Third Amended § 2255 Motion ¦723 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦724 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦The petitioner's argument ¦724 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦The respondent's argument ¦725 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Analysis ¦726 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Timeliness ¦726 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Futility ¦728 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Summary ¦731 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C. ¦Summary Of Claims To Be Considered On The Merits ¦732 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III. ¦STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO JOHNSON'S CLAIMS ¦736 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Standards For § 2255 Relief ¦736 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Scope of the remedy ¦736 ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Section 2255 relief in capital cases ¦738 ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Appellate review ¦739 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B. ¦Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel ¦739 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Ineffective assistance of trial counsel ¦740 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Overview ¦740 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Deficient performance ¦740 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Strategic choices ¦741 ¦
+---+---+---+---+------+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦Presumption of adequate representation ¦742 ¦
+---+---+---+---+------+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii. ¦Role of ABA standards ¦742 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Prejudice ¦744 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel ¦745 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦C. ¦Cumulative Error ¦745 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦746 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦The petitioner's argument ¦746 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦The respondent's argument ¦748 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦The petitioner's reply ¦749 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Cumulative effect of errors of counsel ¦749 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Rejection in the Eighth Circuit ¦751 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Conflict with Supreme Court precedent ¦752 ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
63 cases
-
Langdeaux v. Lund
...of the history of federal habeas relief, before and after it was extended to state prisoners, is set out in Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 737 n.23 (N.D. Iowa 2012). 5. Although the Court in Strickland found that it was only necessary to consider the "prejudice" prong, so th......
-
United States v. Johnson
...in part, Johnson's § 2255 Motion by vacating her four death sentences and one life sentence for CCE murder. Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663 (N.D. Iowa 2012). The prosecution then opted for a resentencing hearing before a new jury, i.e. , a "penalty retrial," pursuant to former......
-
United States v. Johnson
...enterprise (CCE murder), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e), a provision of the Anti–Drug Abuse Act (ADAA). See Johnson v. United States, 860 F.Supp.2d 663 (N.D.Iowa 2012). The prosecution then opted for a “penalty retrial,” to determine the penalty for Johnson's convictions, rather than wi......
-
United States v. Johnson
...in part, Johnson's § 2255 Motion by vacating her four death sentences and one life sentence for CCE murder. Johnson v. United States, 860 F.Supp.2d 663 (N.D.Iowa 2012). The prosecution then opted for a resentencing hearing before a new jury, i.e., a “penalty retrial,” pursuant to former 21 ......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Shifting the Burden: Presuming Prejudice for Failing to Contact an Alibi Witness.
...sub nom. Lambert v. Mackie, No. 16-2241, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18068 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2017). (81.) See Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 777, 920 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (describing trial counsel's performance and calling it "grossly constitutionally inadequate"); Bledsoe v. State, 1......
-
Shifting the Burden: Presuming Prejudice for Failing to Contact an Alibi Witness.
...d sub nom. Lambert v. Mackie, No. 16-2241, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18068 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2017). (81.) See Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 777, 920 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (describing trial counsel's performance and calling it "grossly constitutionally inadequate"); Bledsoe v. State,......