Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

U.S. v. Johnson

Document Cited authorities 96 Cited in 90 Precedent Map Related
Decision Date18 February 2005
Docket NumberNo. CR 01-3046-MWB.,CR 01-3046-MWB.
Citation362 F.Supp.2d 1043
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angela JOHNSON, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

362 F.Supp.2d 1043

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angela JOHNSON, Defendant.

No. CR 01-3046-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

February 18, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Alfred E. Willett, Terpstra, Epping & Willett, Cedar Rapids, IA, Dean A. Stowers, Rosenberg, Stowers & Morse, Des Moines, IA, Patrick J. Berrigan, Watson & Dameron, LLP, Kansas City, MO, Robert R. Rigg, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

Charles J. Williams, Patrick J. Reinert, U.S. Attorney's Office Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, Thomas Henry Miller, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' SECOND ROUND OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS

BENNETT, Chief Judge. 

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.  BACKGROUND ................................................................1049
                      A.  The Original And Superseding Indictments ..............................1049
                      B.  The Co-Defendant's Trial ..............................................1051
                      C.  The Pretrial Motions In Johnson's Case ................................1052
                 II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS ............................................................1053
                      A.  The Government's Motion For Victim Witnesses To Be Present
                            During Trial ........................................................1053
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ..........................................1053
                          2.  Analysis ..........................................................1054
                              a.  Consideration of the government's supplemental argument........1054
                              b.  Section 3510(b) ...............................................1055
                              c.  Section 3771 ..................................................1055
                      B.  The Government's Motion To Use Witness Photographs During
                           Arguments ............................................................1056
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ..........................................1056
                          2.  Analysis ..........................................................1058
                              a.  Latitude and discretion .......................................1058
                              b.  "Summary" exhibits ............................................1058
                              c.  "Demonstrative" exhibits ......................................1059
                              d.  Use of the photographs here ...................................1060
                      C.  The Government's Motion To Determine Admissibility Of Audio
                            Recordings ..........................................................1063
                          1.  Factual background ................................................1063
                          2.  Arguments of the parties ..........................................1064
                          3.  Analysis ..........................................................1065
                      D.  Government's Motion Concerning The Number Of Peremptory
                             Challenges .........................................................1069
                
                1.  Arguments of the parties ..........................................1069
                          2.  Analysis ..........................................................1071
                      E.  The Government's Motion For Court-Ordered Mental Examination Of
                            The Defendant .......................................................1074
                          1.  Background ........................................................1074
                          2.  Arguments of the parties ..........................................1075
                          3.  Analysis ..........................................................1076
                              a.  Rule 12.2 .....................................................1076
                              b.  Rule 12.2(b): Defendant's notice
                i.  Purpose of the provision ................................1077
                                   ii.  The sufficiency of Johnson's notices ....................1077
                              c.  Rule 12.2(c)(1): Court-ordered examination ....................1081
                                    i.  The pertinent provision and its purpose .................1081
                                   ii.  Johnson's request for an "outside taint team" ...........1082
                                  iii.  Johnson's demand for notice .............................1085
                                   iv.  Johnson's demand for Fifth and Sixth Amendment
                                          protections ...........................................1085
                                    v.  Summary .................................................1091
                              d.  Rule 12.2(c)(2) & (3): Disclosure and use of results.......1091
                      F.  The Defendant's Motion To Strike The Death Penalty ....................1092
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ..........................................1092
                          2.  Analysis ..........................................................1094
                      G.  The Defendant's Motion To Exclude Prior Jury Determinations As To
                            Honken ..............................................................1094
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ..........................................1095
                          2.  Analysis ..........................................................1096
                              a.  Honken's 1997 conviction ......................................1096
                              b.  Honken's 2004 conviction and verdict for a death sentence......1096
                      H.  The Defendant's Motion For A Bill Of Particulars ......................1097
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ..........................................1097
                          2.  Analysis ..........................................................1097
                      I.  The Defendant's Motion To Strike Certain Allegations In Counts 6
                            Through 10 ..........................................................1098
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ..........................................1098
                          2.  Analysis ..........................................................1098
                      J.  The Defendant's Motion To Trifurcate The Proceedings ..................1099
                          1.  Arguments of the parties...........................................1099
                              a.  Written submissions ...........................................1099
                              b.  Oral arguments ................................................1100
                              c.  Post-hearing inquiry ..........................................1102
                          2.  Analysis ..........................................................1103
                              a.  Constitutional requirements ...................................1103
                              b.  Other grounds for "trifurcation" ..............................1104
                                    i.  Statutory limitations on the "information" presented at
                                          sentencing ............................................1104
                                   ii.  "Probative value" .......................................1105
                                  iii.  "Prejudice" .............................................1106
                                   iv.  "Confusion of the issues" ...............................1109
                                    v.  "Misleading the jury" ...................................1109
                              c.  The remedy ....................................................1110
                III.  CONCLUSION ................................................................1111

The court recently resolved a dozen pretrial motions in this federal death-penalty case, some of which required the court and the parties to explore terra incognita. See United States v. Johnson, 354 F.Supp2d 939 (N.D.Iowa 2005). Several more pretrial motions, filed subsequently, were mooted by the government's voluntary dismissal of the two non-capital charges against this defendant. Nevertheless, this matter is now before the court on a "second," and hopefully "final," round of pretrial motions involving nearly as many, and nearly as varied, motions as the "first round." Some of the motions attempt to resolve, before trial, issues that arose during the separate trial of a co-defendant in a companion case, but others require the court and the parties to make further incursions into terra incognita.

I. BACKGROUND

To provide the necessary background to the present group of pretrial motions, the court must once again review the charges and the key procedural history in this case against Angela Johnson and the separate case against co-defendant Dustin Honken. The court must also add certain important incidents in that history that have occurred since the court's ruling on the "first round" of motions. The review of the charges and procedural history begins with the two indictments filed against Johnson

A. The Original And Superseding Indictments

In two separate indictments, a grand jury charged defendant Angela Johnson with a variety of offenses arising, principally, from her alleged involvement in the murders in 1993 of five witnesses to the drug-trafficking activities of Johnson's sometime boyfriend, Dustin Honken. The grand jury handed down the first seven-count indictment on July 26, 2000, and the second ten-count indictment on August 30, 2001. On April 25, 2002, the government filed its original notice in each case of its intent to seek the death penalty on all of the charges against Johnson relating to the murder of witnesses, that is, Counts 1 through 5 of the first indictment and all ten of the charges in the second indictment. Those notices identified the factors that the government contends warrant the imposition of the death penalty under the applicable death-penalty statutes.

On August 23, 2002, the government filed superseding indictments in both cases against Johnson. The superseding indictment in the first case against Johnson, Case No. CR 00-3034-MWB, reiterated and expanded the seven counts of the original indictment. It charged the following offenses: five counts of aiding and abetting the murders of witnesses Gregory Nicholson, Lori Duncan (Nicholson's friend), Amber Duncan and Kandi Duncan (Lori Duncan's daughters, ages...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • Basham v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 5 June 2013
    ...manner suggested in Claim 21. See, e.g., United States v. Natson, 444 F.Supp.2d 1296, 1309 (M.D.Ga.2006) ; United States v. Johnson, 362 F.Supp.2d 1043, 1110–11 (N.D.Iowa 2005) ; United States v. Mayhew, 380 F.Supp.2d 936, 955–57 (S.D.Ohio 2005) ; cf. United States v. Jordan, 357 F.Supp.2d ......
  • U.S. v. Basciano
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 12 January 2011
    ...and mitigating factors.” United States v. Natson, 444 F.Supp.2d 1296, 1309 (M.D.Ga.2006); see also United States v. Johnson, 362 F.Supp.2d 1043, 1110–11 (N.D.Iowa 2005). Basciano's motion on this issue is GRANTED.C. Strike Requests Basciano moves to strike the factors that the Government in......
  • Jackson v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 19 June 2009
    ...refused to bifurcate the penalty phase as argued here); United States v. Fell, 372 F.Supp.2d 753 (D.Vt.2005); United States v. Johnson, 362 F.Supp.2d 1043 (N.D.Iowa 2005), aff'd, 495 F.3d 951 (8th cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 756, 172 L.Ed.2d 747 (2008); Evans v. Smith, 54 F.Supp.2......
  • U.S. v. Mayhew
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 1 August 2005
    ...Furthermore, a bifurcated proceeding would address any potential Crawford issues...."). Similarly, the court in United States v. Johnson, 362 F.Supp.2d 1043 (N.D.Iowa 2005) relied upon the Court's gatekeeping power, finding that admitting victim impact evidence simultaneously with evidence ......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 8 Waiver and Risk of Waiver
    • United States
    • The Privilege of Silence: Fifth Amendment Protections Against Self-Incrimination (ABA)
    • Invalid date
    ...of all interviews and testing of the defendant, with the tapes to be provided to defense counsel. See United States v. Johnson, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1082-85 (N.D. Iowa 2005); United States v. Sampson, 335 F. Supp. 2d 166, 247-48 (D. Mass. 2004). Other courts have required the appointment o......
  • Evidentiary requirements for the admission of enhanced digital photographs.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 74 No. 1, January 2007
    • 1 January 2007
    ...because foundational requirement held to be the same as that for a standard tape recorder). See also United States v. Johnson, 362 F.Supp.2d 1043, 1064-1069 (N.D. Iowa 2005) (discussing whether an enhanced recording is admissible as a duplicate of the original recording where the original h......
  • Image Credits
    • United States
    • Invalid date
    ...(whiteboard) page 303: Image from iStock.com/Greeek (flip chart) Chapter 24 page 313: Photographs from United States v. Johnson, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1043, n.6 (N.D. Iowa 2005); image printed at only available resolution General Copyright Notices Barnes & Roberts LLC is the copyright holder for ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT