U.S. v. Johnson, Nos. CR 00-3034-MWB, CR 01-3046-MWB.
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | Bennett |
| Citation | 196 F.Supp.2d 795 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angela JOHNSON, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | Nos. CR 00-3034-MWB, CR 01-3046-MWB. |
| Decision Date | 23 April 2002 |
v.
Angela JOHNSON, Defendant.
Page 796
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 797
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 798
Alfred E. Willett, Terpstra, Epping & Willett, Cedar Rapids, IA, Dean A. Stowers, Rosenberg Law Firm, Des Moines, IA, Thomas P. Frerichs, Frerichs LAw Office, Waterloo, IA, PAtrick J. Berrigan, Watson & Dameron, LLP, Kansas City, MO, Philip A. MacTaggart, Federal Public Defender, Davenport, IA, Robert R. Rigg, Drake University Legal Clinic, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.
Patrick J. Reinert, Charles J. Williams, U.S. Atty's Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for U.S.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE EVIDENCE AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
BENNETT, Chief Judge.
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................. 800
II. FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................... 802
A. The Informant's "Résumé" of Cooperation in Federal Investigations ....... 802
1. Cooperation with Pennsylvania authorities ............................ 803
2. The Scotter Clark investigation ...................................... 803
3. The Stefani information .............................................. 803
4. The Daniel Dice investigation ........................................ 803
5. Scotter Clark revisited and the Garrett investigation ................ 804
6. The Dr. Shultice investigation ....................................... 804
7. McNeese's motivations ................................................ 805
8. Effects of McNeese's prior cooperation ............................... 805
B. Acquisition Of Incriminating Statements ................................. 806
1. Johnson's placement in the Benton County Jail ........................ 806
a. The decision-maker ................................................ 806
b. Benton vs. Linn ................................................... 808
c. The rationale for Johnson's placement ............................. 809
2. "First contact" and reaction ......................................... 811
a. Johnson's cell assignments ........................................ 811
b. First contact between McNeese and Johnson ......................... 812
c. First notice of contact and reactions ............................. 813
i. The August 13th notice to a jailer ........................... 813
ii. The August 14th meetings ..................................... 814
iii. Johnson's removal to a different cell ........................ 814
3. Continued contacts ................................................... 814
a. Frequency and manner of contacts .................................. 814
b. The August 30th incidents ......................................... 816
c. The September 3rd note-passing report ............................. 816
d. September 6th meeting ............................................. 817
e. Incidents from September 6th to September 11th .................... 820
4. The September 11th instructions and aftermath ........................ 821
5. Termination of the contacts .......................................... 824
6. McNeese's admissions to another inmate ............................... 824
7. Summary of findings .................................................. 825
III. SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ..................................................... 827
A. The Second Indictment ................................................... 827
B. Framing Of The Admissibility Dispute .................................... 827
Page 799
1. The government's "Notice Of Intent To Use Evidence" .................. 827
2. The defendant's response ............................................. 828
C. Hearings And Other Proceedings .......................................... 828
1. The first evidentiary hearing ........................................ 828
2. Post-hearing submissions ............................................. 828
3. The second evidentiary hearing ....................................... 829
4. Oral arguments ....................................................... 829
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS ............................................................. 829
A. The "Deliberate Elicitation" Rule In Supreme Court Precedent ............ 829
1. Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d
246 (1964) .......................................................... 829
a. Facts of the case ................................................. 829
b. The Supreme Court's analysis ...................................... 830
2. Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424
(1977) .............................................................. 830
a. Facts of the case ................................................. 830
b. The Supreme Court's analysis ...................................... 831
3. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115
(1980) .............................................................. 832
a. Facts of the case ................................................. 832
b. The Supreme Court's analysis ...................................... 832
4. Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) . 834
a. Facts of the case ................................................. 834
b. The Supreme Court's analysis ...................................... 835
5. Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364
(1986) .............................................................. 837
a. Facts of the case ................................................. 837
b. The Supreme Court's analysis ...................................... 838
B. Application Of The Rule ................................................. 840
1. Preliminary considerations ........................................... 840
a. Burden of proof ................................................... 840
b. "Elements" of the claim ........................................... 841
2. Attachment of the right to counsel ................................... 843
a. Attachment of the right ........................................... 843
b. To what charges the right had attached ............................ 844
3. Agency of the informant .............................................. 846
a. "Luck," "happenstance," "entrepreneurs," and "volunteers" ......... 846
b. Indicia of agency ................................................. 847
i. The Moore decision ........................................... 847
ii. "Control," "roving agency," and "symbiotic relationships." ... 849
iii. Other indicia of agency ...................................... 854
iv. The Moore decision revisited ................................. 856
v. The governing rule ........................................... 862
c. When was McNeese a government agent? .............................. 863
4. "Deliberate elicitation" ............................................. 871
a. Conduct of the government ......................................... 873
i. "Intentional creation" of the opportunity .................... 875
ii. "Knowing exploitation" of the opportunity .................... 876
iii. "Legitimate purposes" of the surveillance .................... 877
iv. Did the constable just blunder? .............................. 885
b. Conduct of the informant .......................................... 885
i. "Passive listening" vs. "deliberate elicitation" ............. 886
ii. Was McNeese only a "passive listener"? ....................... 888
iii. Impact of McNeese's "ultra vires" actions .................... 891
iv. Impact of the voluntariness of Johnson's disclosures ......... 892
5. Scope of the preclusion .............................................. 895
a. Extent of the "taint" ............................................. 896
Page 800
i. What statements were obtained in violation of Massiah? ....... 896
ii. What evidence, besides statements, is "tainted"? ............. 898
b. Does the government's "good faith" remove the "taint"? ............ 901
c. Can the evidence be used for impeachment? ......................... 902
V. CONCLUSION ................................................................. 902
Was there a "Massiah violation" of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel when a singularly adept and seasoned federal jailhouse informant obtained self-incriminating statements from the defendant shortly after her indictment and arrest on charges that carry the federal death penalty? The government contends that the informant initially procured incriminating statements as an "entrepreneur," but thereafter followed instructions to act merely as a "listening post" while the defendant volunteered more incriminating statements, including the location of the bodies of murdered witnesses. The government also contends that its continuing investigation of the defendant, including use of the informant, was appropriate to discover evidence of other potential, but uncharged or inchoate, crimes. The defendant, however, asserts that the informant was ever and always a "government agent" who "deliberately elicited" incriminating statements from her as part of a carefully orchestrated effort by the government to obtain such statements in violation of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
While the consequences of admitting or suppressing the evidence obtained by the jailhouse informant may be particularly dire here, either for the government's case or the defendant's, in light of the nature of the evidence and the gravity of the charges involved, that is not a consideration under Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), and its progeny, which are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
11 cases
-
State v. Ashby, SC 18190
...the instruction of a government official." United States v. Watson , supra, 894 F.2d at 1347–48 ; see also United States v. Johnson , 196 F. Supp. 2d 795, 855, 860 (N.D. Iowa 2002) (fact that defendant was in custody demonstrated deliberate elicitation but was not relevant to agency), rev'd......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, Nos. CR 00-3034-MWB, CR 01-3046-MWB.
...suppressed use of the jailhouse informant's evidence as to the crimes charged in the first indictment, see United States v. Johnson, 196 F.Supp.2d 795 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (Johnson I), ending the battle on the "first front," at least in this court. However, while the "Massiah issue" as to the ch......
-
State v. Marshall, No. 13–0739.
...conduct that, considering all of the circumstances, is the functional equivalent of interrogation.”). But cf. United States v. Johnson, 196 F.Supp.2d 795, 841 (N.D.Iowa 2002), rev'd on other grounds, 338 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir.2003) (noting that the defendant conceded that she bore the burd......
-
U.S. v. Honken, No. CR 01-3047-MWB.
...factual background As this court explained in a ruling in the companion case against Angela Johnson, see United States v. Johnson, 196 F.Supp.2d 795 (N.D.Iowa 2002), rev'd, 338 F.3d 918 (8th Cir.2003), and rev'd, 352 F.3d 339 (8th Cir.2003), a jailhouse informant named Robert McNeese succee......
Request a trial to view additional results