U.S. v. Johnson

Decision Date31 December 2002
Docket NumberNo. CR 00-3034-MWB.,CR 00-3034-MWB.
Citation239 F.Supp.2d 897
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angela JOHNSON, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

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

Patrick J. Reinert, Charles J. Williams, U.S. Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for U.S.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS COUNTS

THROUGH

AND

PURSUANT TO

18

U.S.C.

§ 3282

DUE TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON NON-CAPITAL CRIMES AND TO DISMISS COUNT
DUE TO DUPLICITY

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 I. BACKGROUND .........................................................   900
                II. LEGAL ANALYSIS......................................................   901
                    A. The Challenge To Counts 1 Through 5..............................   901
                       1. Arguments of the parties......................................   901
                       2. Applicable law................................................   902
                          a. Statutory provisions.......................................   902
                          b. Eighth Circuit precedent...................................   903
                       3. Application of the law........................................   904
                    B. The Challenges To Count 7........................................   905
                       1. Arguments of the parties......................................   905
                       2. Applicable law................................................   906
                          a. Timeliness of conspiracy indictments.......................   906
                          b. Duplicitous conspiracy indictments.........................   909
                          c. Single or multiple conspiracies............................   910
                       3. Application of the law........................................   912
                          a. The count in question......................................   912
                          b. Identity, duplicity, and timeliness on the face of the
                indictment.................................................   913
                          c. Identity, duplicity, and timeliness as questions of proof..   914
                             i. Identity or duplicity?..................................   915
                            ii. Timeliness..............................................   916
                          d. Prejudice..................................................   917
                III. CONCLUSION.........................................................   917
                
I. BACKGROUND

In two separate indictments, a grand jury charges defendant Angela Johnson with a variety of charges arising, principally, from her alleged involvement in the murders of five witnesses. The grand jury handed down the first seven-count indictment on July 26, 2000, and the second tencount indictment on August 30, 2001. On April 25, 2002, the government filed notices in both cases of its intent to seek the death penalty on all of the charges relating to the murder of witnesses. On June 24, 2002, Johnson filed motions in the first case against her to dismiss Counts 1 through 5 and 7 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3282 due to the statute of limitations on non-capital crimes (docket no. 328) and to dismiss Count 7 due to duplicity (docket no. 326). Those motions are now before the court.

While Johnson's motions were pending, on August 23, 2002, the government filed superseding indictments in both cases against Johnson. The superseding indictment in this case involves essentially the same seven counts as the original indictment, which are the following: five counts of aiding and abetting the murder of witnesses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(a)(1)(A) and (C), 1512(a)(2)(A) or 1513(a)(1)(A) and (C),1 1111, and 2; one count of aiding and abetting the solicitation of the murder of witnesses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 373(a)(1) and 2; and one count of conspiracy to interfere with witnesses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The August 23, 2002, superseding indictment in the companion case, Case No. CR 01-3046-MWB, charges Johnson with five counts of killing witnesses while engaging in a drug-trafficking conspiracy ("conspiracy murder"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and five counts of killing the same witnesses in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise ("CCE murder"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The five murder victims identified in the second indictment are the same five murder victims identified in Counts 1 through 5 of the first indictment.

On September 24, 2002, the government filed a notice in this case withdrawing its notice of intent to seek the death penalty for violations of the witness-tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512. However, the government reiterated its intention to continue pursuing the death penalty in the companion case, Case No. CR 01-3046-MWB, as to the "conspiracy murder" and "CCE murder" charges.

Trial on both indictments is currently scheduled to begin on March 10, 2003, although the defendant's December 11, 2002, motion for a continuance of the trial is also pending before the court.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The court will begin its legal analysis with Johnson's "statute of limitations" challenge to Counts 1 through 5, which involves, primarily, an issue of statutory interpretation. The court will then turn to Johnson's intertwined "statute of limitations" and "duplicity" challenges to Count 7, which both depend upon Johnson's assertion that Count 7 charges multiple conspiracies—some of which are timebarred—not a single conspiracy.

A. The Challenge To Counts 1 Through 5
1. Arguments of the parties

In support of her motion to dismiss the charges of murder in violation of the witness-tampering statute 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a) in Counts 1 through 5, Johnson contends that the applicable statute of limitations is 18 U.S.C. § 3282, which sets a five-year statute of limitations, not 18 U.S.C. § 3281, which provides that "[a]n indictment for any offense punishable by death may be found at any time without limitation." This is so, she contends, notwithstanding that the federal death penalty applies to the § 1512(a) offenses with which she is charged, because, at the time that she allegedly committed those offenses, in July and November of 1993, the federal death penalty had been declared unconstitutional. It was not until later, in 1994, that Congress rectified this infirmity by passing the present Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA). Under these circumstances, Johnson argues that the § 1512(a) offenses with which she is charged should be classified as non-capital offenses, subject to a five-year statute of limitations under § 3282. Consequently, the § 1512(a) charges in the July 26, 2000, indictment, alleging murders almost seven years earlier, in July and November of 1993, are untimely. Johnson acknowledges that her argument is contrary to Eighth Circuit precedent. However, she explains, she is raising the issue to preserve it for future review in the event that such review becomes necessary.

In further support of her argument, Johnson contends that, if Congress had intended § 3281 to apply while death penalty provisions relevant to § 1512(a) were considered unconstitutional, Congress could have written the statute in a manner to indicate that clearly. As a matter of statutory interpretation, Johnson contends that application of § 3281 to offenses that do not fall within a constitutionally effective death penalty fails to give effect to the statute's language regarding offenses "punishable by death." Finally, she argues that the rule of lenity should apply to give her the benefit of the more favorable interpretation of § 3281.

In response, the government, not surprisingly, asserts that Johnson's argument is contrary to Eighth Circuit precedent that Johnson herself identified as standing against her. The government asserts that even Johnson must realize that she cannot win her argument on the merits in light of the Eighth Circuit decisions cited by both parties.

2. Applicable law
a. Statutory provisions

The present version of the witness-tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a), in pertinent part, states the following:

§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(a)(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—

(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2).

(2) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

(A) in the case of murder (as defined in section 1111), the death penalty or imprisonment for life, and in the case of any other killing, the punishment provided in section 1112[.]

18 U.S.C. § 1512(a). Thus, as it presently stands, § 1512(a) provides, at least on its face, that if a "killing" in violation of § 1512(a)(1) is a "murder," as elsewhere defined, such a violation of the statute is punishable by death pursuant to § 1512(a)(2)(A).

However, the present language of § 1512(a)(2)(A) is the result of an amendment in 1994. See Pub.L. 103-322, § 60018. Prior to that amendmente.g., at the time of the alleged killings at issue in Counts 1 through 5 of the Superseding Indictment in this case—subparagraph (A) read as follows: "in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112 of this title." See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(2)(A) (1993). Similarly, prior to amendment in 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 1111 defined "murder," distinguished between "murder in the first degree" and "murder in the second degree," see 18...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • U.S. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 16 Diciembre 2005
    ...connection"). Johnson also made various constitutional and other challenges to the charges against her. United States v. Johnson, 239 F.Supp.2d 897 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (ruling denying the defendant's motion to dismiss non-capital offenses on statute of limitations grounds); United States v. Joh......
  • Johnson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 22 Marzo 2012
    ...determination under § 848 violates a defendant's due process, confrontation, and cross-examination rights.); United States v. Johnson, 239 F.Supp.2d 897 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (death penalty case involving prosecutions for murders of witnesses; defendant's motion to dismiss counts: challenge to fi......
  • Johnson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 22 Marzo 2012
    ...determination under § 848 violates a defendant's due process, confrontation, and cross-examination rights.); United States v. Johnson, 239 F. Supp. 2d 897 (N.D. Iowa 2002) (death penalty case involving prosecutions for murders of witnesses; defendant's motion to dismiss counts: challenge to......
  • U.S. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 11 Julio 2003
    ...court's consideration. Johnson's motion to reconsider challenges a part of this court's December 31, 2002, order published at 239 F.Supp.2d 897 (N.D.Iowa 2002). The pertinent part of the court's order addressed Johnson's contention that the charges in Counts 1 through 5, which charge murder......

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