United States v. Johnson

Document Cited authorities (106) Cited in (8) Precedent Map Related
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
Writing for the CourtMARK W. BENNETT
CitationUnited States v. Johnson, 915 F.Supp.2d 958 (N.D. Iowa 2013)
Decision Date05 March 2013
Docket NumberNo. CR 01–3046–MWB.,CR 01–3046–MWB.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Angela JOHNSON, Defendant.

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.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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  ¦
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • United States v. Montgomery
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — 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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — 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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • March 14, 2013
    ... ... Daniel WALSH, et al., Defendants. No. 09–CV–2145. United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division. March 14, 2013 ... and described her as “not being all there.” Schweighart called his supervisor, Michael Johnson, and advised him that Janet reported being suicidal and diabetic and otherwise refused to answer ... ...
  • United States v. George
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • January 22, 2019
    ...should be relevant to the sentencing decision and subject to heightened standards of reliability. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 915 F. Supp. 2d 958, 1008-10 (N.D. Iowa 2013), vacated in part, 764 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Concepcion Sablan, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1214......
Add as a preferred source on Google