U.S. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 23 April 2002
• Docket Number: Nos. CR 00-3034-MWB, CR 01-3046-MWB.,s. CR 00-3034-MWB, CR 01-3046-MWB.
• Citation: 196 F.Supp.2d 795
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angela JOHNSON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

196 F.Supp.2d 795

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

Nos. CR 00-3034-MWB, CR 01-3046-MWB.

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

April 23, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                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
                

                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
                

                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...