U.S. v. Johnson, No. CR 01-3046-MWB.
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | Bennett |
| Citation | 403 F.Supp.2d 721 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angela JOHNSON, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. CR 01-3046-MWB. |
| Decision Date | 16 December 2005 |
Page 721
v.
Angela JOHNSON, Defendant.
Page 722
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 723
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 724
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 725
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 726
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 727
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 728
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 729
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 730
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 731
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 732
Alfred E. Willett, Terpstra, Epping & Willett, Cedar Rapids, IA, Dean A. Stowers, Rosenberg, Stowers & Morse, Robert R. Rigg, Des Moines, IA, Patrick J. Berrigan, Watson & Dameron, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT AND FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR NEW TRIAL
BENNETT, Chief Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ..................................................................736
II. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................741
A. Background ............................................................741
1. Prior prosecutions of Honken ......................................741
2. The disappearance of the witnesses ................................742
3. Discovery of the murder victims' bodies ...........................742
4. The indictments in this case ......................................743
5. Honken's trial ....................................................744
B. Significant Rulings Before And During Johnson's Trial .................745
C. Johnson's Trial .......................................................748
1. The charges at trial ..............................................748
2. Jury selection ....................................................748
3. The "merits phase" ................................................751
4. The "eligibility phase" ...........................................752
5. The "penalty phase" ...............................................753
D. Post-Trial Proceedings ................................................755
III. THE MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT ..........................................757
A. Grounds For The Motion ................................................757
B. Timeliness ............................................................757
1. Arguments of the parties ..........................................757
2. Analysis ..........................................................757
C. Failure To Charge A "Substantive Connection" ..........................759
1. Arguments of the parties ..........................................759
2. Analysis ..........................................................759
D. Failure To Charge A Cognizable "Aiding And Abetting" Offense ..........761
1. Arguments of the parties ..........................................761
Page 733
2. Analysis ..........................................................761
IV. THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR NEW TRIAL .........................763
A. Waiver ................................................................763
B. Applicable Standards ..................................................765
1. Judgment of acquittal .............................................765
2. New trial .........................................................766
C. Allegedly Erroneous Pretrial Rulings ..................................766
1. Ground No. 5: Denial of motions for change of venue ...............767
a. Background ....................................................767
b. Arguments of the parties ......................................768
c. Analysis ......................................................768
2. Ground No. 11: Failure to strike and submission to the jury of
legally insufficient allegations in Counts 6 through 10 .........770
a. Background ....................................................770
b. Arguments of the parties ......................................770
c. Analysis ......................................................771
3. Ground No. 21: Failure to strike the death penalty after the
indictment was amended during jury selection ....................772
a. Background ....................................................772
b. Arguments of the parties ......................................772
c. Analysis ......................................................773
D. Alleged Errors During Jury Selection ..................................774
1. Ground No. 7: Rule 24 violates equal protection ...................774
a. Background ....................................................774
b. Arguments of the parties ......................................775
c. Analysis ......................................................775
2. Ground No. 6: Failure to grant Johnson additional peremptory
challenges ......................................................776
a. Background ....................................................776
b. Arguments of the parties ......................................777
c. Analysis ......................................................777
3. Ground No. 8: Challenges for cause erroneously granted ............779
a. Background ....................................................779
i. Prospective Juror 533 ...................................779
ii. Prospective Juror 458 ...................................780
iii. Prospective Juror 769 ...................................780
b. Arguments of the parties ......................................781
c. Analysis ......................................................781
i. The standard for an "impartial" juror ...................781
ii. The standard for erroneous rulings on motions to strike
jurors ................................................782
iii. Application of the standards ............................783
4. Ground No. 9: Challenges for cause erroneously denied .........785
a. Jurors on whom the claim can be based .....................785
b. Background ................................................787
i. Prospective Juror 600 ................................787
ii. Prospective Juror 797 ................................787
c. Arguments of the parties ..................................788
d. Analysis ..................................................789
E. Alleged Errors During The "Merits Phase" ..............................789
1. Ground No. 1: Insufficiency of the "merits phase" evidence .......790
a. Arguments of the parties .....................................790
b. Analysis .....................................................793
i. Insufficiency of the evidence on the "conspiracy
murder" counts .........................................793
ii. Insufficiency of the evidence on the "CCE murder"
counts .................................................796
Page 734
2. Ground No. 4: The "merits" verdicts were against the weight of
the evidence ...................................................797
3. Ground No. 13: The admission of, and argument from, evidence of
Honken's guilty plea, conviction, and offense details ..........797
a. Background ...................................................798
b. Arguments of the parties .....................................799
c. Analysis .....................................................800
i. Applicable law .........................................800
ii. The admission of Honken's 1997 guilty plea and details
of the offenses ......................................801
iii. The prosecutor's argument concerning Honken's 1997
conviction ...........................................804
4. Ground No. 14: The admission of "bad acts" evidence ..............804
a. Background ...................................................805
b. Arguments of the parties .....................................805
c. Analysis .....................................................805
i. Untimeliness ...........................................805
ii. Evidence of drug activity after the killings ...........806
iii. Other challenged evidence ..............................808
5. Ground No. 15: The admission of hearsay ..........................809
a. Background ...................................................810
b. Arguments of the parties .....................................810
c. Analysis .....................................................811
i. Admissibility of statements of Nicholson and DeGeus .....811
ii. Admissibility of Honken's 1997 guilty plea ..............814
6. Ground No. 16: The admission of Rick Held's testimony
concerning Honken's purchase of a firearm ......................815
a. Background ...................................................815
b. Arguments of the parties .....................................815
c. Analysis .....................................................816
i. "Testimonial" hearsay ...................................816
ii. Admissibility ...........................................819
7. Ground No. 17: The admission of evidence from McNeese ............820
8. Ground No. 22: The admission of evidence that Johnson was the
"principal" in the offenses ....................................820
a. Background ...................................................821
b. Arguments of the parties .....................................821
c. Analysis .....................................................822
9. Ground No. 18: The closing argument allegedly in violation of
Johnson's right against self-incrimination .....................824
a. Background ...................................................824
b. Arguments of the parties .....................................824
c. Analysis .....................................................827
i. Violation of the right against self-incrimination .......827
ii. The prosecutor's argument that Johnson may have been
...To continue reading
Request your trial
26 practice notes
-
United States v. Johnson, No. CR 01–3046–MWB.
...” See United States v. Johnson, 362 F.Supp.2d 1043, 1099–1111 (N.D.Iowa 2005) (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 848(k)).United States v. Johnson, 403 F.Supp.2d 721, 747 (N.D.Iowa 2005). Johnson is correct that, in my ruling on her § 2255 Motion, I did not grant any relief from the original jury's verdic......
-
U.S. v. Brandao, Criminal No. 03-10329-PBS.
...defendants did not object to the jury instruction at trial, the instruction is reviewed for plain error."); United States v. Johnson, 403 F.Supp.2d 721, 831 (N.D.Iowa 2005) (noting that "when no timely objection is made to preserve the error in the instructions, the reviewing court will rev......
-
United States v. Johnson, No. CR 01-3046-MWB
...See United States v. Johnson, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1099-1111 (N.D. Iowa 2005) (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 848(k)).United States v. Johnson, 403 F. Supp. 2d 721, 747 (N.D. Iowa 2005). Johnson is correct that, in my ruling on her § 2255 Motion, I did not grant any relief from the original jury's ve......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, No. 06-1001.
...for a new trial — all of which were denied by the district court1 in a comprehensive memorandum opinion. See United States v. Johnson, 403 F.Supp.2d 721 (N.D.Iowa 2005). Johnson appeals from her convictions and her sentences, raising 28 issues.2 We remand the case so that the district court......
Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
-
U.S. v. Brandao, Criminal No. 03-10329-PBS.
...defendants did not object to the jury instruction at trial, the instruction is reviewed for plain error."); United States v. Johnson, 403 F.Supp.2d 721, 831 (N.D.Iowa 2005) (noting that "when no timely objection is made to preserve the error in the instructions, the reviewing court will rev......
-
United States v. Johnson, No. CR 01-3046-MWB
...See United States v. Johnson, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1099-1111 (N.D. Iowa 2005) (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 848(k)).United States v. Johnson, 403 F. Supp. 2d 721, 747 (N.D. Iowa 2005). Johnson is correct that, in my ruling on her § 2255 Motion, I did not grant any relief from the original jury's ve......
-
Johnson v. United States, No. C 09-3064-MWB
...background to Johnson's convictions has been set forth in considerable detail, not only by this court, see United States v. Johnson, 403 F. Supp. 2d 721 (N.D. Iowa 2005), but by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, see United States v. Johnson, 495 F.3d 951, 957-60 (8th Cir. 2007), cert. de......
-
United States v. Johnson, No. CR 01–3046–MWB.
...Nevertheless, even that appearance of “arbitrariness” does not reach constitutional proportions. See United States v. Johnson, 403 F.Supp.2d 721, 736 (N.D.Iowa 2005) (denying Johnson's post-trial notices, but noting the defendant's argument about the unfairness of the different sentences). ......
Request a trial to view additional results