United States v. Johnson, No. CR 01–3046–MWB.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
Writing for the CourtMARK W. BENNETT
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angela JOHNSON, Defendant.
Docket NumberNo. CR 01–3046–MWB.
Decision Date05 March 2013

915 F.Supp.2d 958

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

No. CR 01–3046–MWB.

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

Jan. 16, 2013.
Opinion Denying Reconsideration March 5, 2013.


[915 F.Supp.2d 963]


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 Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN STATUTORY AND NON–STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.
+-----------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
                +-----------------¦
                ¦ ¦
                +-----------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦I. ¦INTRODUCTION ¦966 ¦
                +-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦II. ¦CONTEXTUAL MATTERS ¦967 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦A. ¦Scope Of The Penalty Retrial ¦968 ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦ ¦B. ¦Aggravating Factors ¦971 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦The role of aggravating factors ¦971 ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Statutory aggravating factors ¦972 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Factors that can be considered ¦972 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Factors alleged and noticed ¦972 ¦
                +----+---+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦Factors that can properly be considered ¦973 ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Factors that can be challenged ¦975 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦C. ¦Penalties ¦976 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Penalties vacated ¦976 ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Possibility of a death sentence on Count 6 ¦976 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦976 ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Controlling authority ¦976 ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Analysis ¦978 ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦d. ¦Summary ¦979 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Possibility of a sentence less than life without parole on all Counts ¦979 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦979 ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦The statutory sentencing scheme ¦980 ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Analysis ¦981 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Johnsons authority ¦981 ¦
                +---+---+--+--+------+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦The jury's ability to consider lesser penalties ¦981 ¦
                +---+---+--+--+------+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii. ¦The jury's ability to recommend a lesser penalty ¦983 ¦
                +---+---+--+--+------+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iv. ¦The jury's ability to impose a lesser penalty ¦983 ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦d. ¦Summary ¦985 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦D. ¦Necessity Of A Preliminary Evidentiary Showing ¦985 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦985 ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Analysis ¦986 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦III. ¦CHALLENGES TO STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS ¦989 ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦IV. ¦CHALLENGES TO THE NON–STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS ¦990 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦A. ¦Multiple Killings And Passage Of Time ¦990 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Allegations of the factors ¦990 ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦990 ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Standards for duplicativeness ¦991 ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦4. ¦Analysis ¦993 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦B. ¦Lack of remorse ¦995 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Allegation of the factor ¦995 ¦
                +---+---+----+----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦995 ¦
                +---+---+----+----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Authority regarding lack of remorse as a separate factor ¦996 ¦
                +---+---+----+----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦4. ¦Analysis ¦999 ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦C. ¦Uncharged Criminal Conduct ¦1000 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Allegations of the factors ¦1000 ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Duplicativeness ¦1000 ¦
                +----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦Inadmissibility in general ¦1001 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Statutory and other limitations ¦1001 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦Arguments of the parties ¦1001 ¦
                +--+--+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii. ¦The purported statutory bar ¦1002 ¦
                +--+--+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iii. ¦Admissibility of unadjudicated conduct in capital cases ¦1003 ¦
                +--+--+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦iv. ¦Admissibility of unadjudicated criminal conduct as an independent aggravating factor ¦1004 ¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
                +--+--+-+-+------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦v. ¦Summary ¦1005 ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Biased sentencing ¦1006 ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦More prejudicial than probative ¦1007 ¦
                +----+----+---+----+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦d. ¦Relevance and heightened reliability ¦1007 ¦
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • United States v. Montgomery, No. 2:11–cr–20044–JPM–1.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • March 19, 2014
    ...phase of capital trials, the Court will not strike the unadjudicated conduct alleged by the Government. See United States v. Johnson, 915 F.Supp.2d 958, 1004 (N.D.Iowa 2013) (“There seems to be little doubt that unadjudicated criminal conduct can be considered in support of another aggravat......
  • United States v. Montgomery, No. 2:11–cr–20044–JPM–1.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • March 19, 2014
    ...phase of capital trials, the Court will not strike the unadjudicated conduct alleged by the Government. See United States v. Johnson, 915 F.Supp.2d 958, 1004 (N.D.Iowa 2013) (“There seems to be little doubt that unadjudicated criminal conduct can be considered in support of another aggravat......
  • United States v. Merriweather, Case No. 2:07-cr-00243-RDP-JEO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • June 25, 2014
    ...in the FDPA to review evidence that the prosecution intends to offer in support of its aggravating factors); United States v. Johnson, 915 F. Supp. 2d 958, 989 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (same). C. MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND PRECLUDE THE FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS AGGRAVATING FACTOR FROM EVIDENCE (DOCS. 233 AND......
  • Hahn v. Walsh, No. 09–CV–2145.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Central District of Illinois
    • March 14, 2013
    ...This court notes that Janet was a very troubled young woman, and it is likely that everyone involved in her arrest and incarceration [915 F.Supp.2d 958]at the Champaign County jail regrets that they were not able to forestall her death. “But the fact that more measures, or different measure......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • United States v. Montgomery, No. 2:11–cr–20044–JPM–1.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • March 19, 2014
    ...phase of capital trials, the Court will not strike the unadjudicated conduct alleged by the Government. See United States v. Johnson, 915 F.Supp.2d 958, 1004 (N.D.Iowa 2013) (“There seems to be little doubt that unadjudicated criminal conduct can be considered in support of another aggravat......
  • United States v. Montgomery, No. 2:11–cr–20044–JPM–1.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • March 19, 2014
    ...phase of capital trials, the Court will not strike the unadjudicated conduct alleged by the Government. See United States v. Johnson, 915 F.Supp.2d 958, 1004 (N.D.Iowa 2013) (“There seems to be little doubt that unadjudicated criminal conduct can be considered in support of another aggravat......
  • United States v. Merriweather, Case No. 2:07-cr-00243-RDP-JEO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • June 25, 2014
    ...in the FDPA to review evidence that the prosecution intends to offer in support of its aggravating factors); United States v. Johnson, 915 F. Supp. 2d 958, 989 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (same). C. MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND PRECLUDE THE FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS AGGRAVATING FACTOR FROM EVIDENCE (DOCS. 233 AND......
  • Hahn v. Walsh, No. 09–CV–2145.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Central District of Illinois
    • March 14, 2013
    ...This court notes that Janet was a very troubled young woman, and it is likely that everyone involved in her arrest and incarceration [915 F.Supp.2d 958]at the Champaign County jail regrets that they were not able to forestall her death. “But the fact that more measures, or different measure......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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