United States v. Johnson

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: MARK W. BENNETT
• Decision Date: 16 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. CR 01-3046-MWB,CR 01-3046-MWB
• Citation: United States v. Johnson, No. CR 01-3046-MWB (N.D. Iowa Jan 16, 2013)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANGELA JOHNSON, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v.ANGELA JOHNSON, Defendant.

No. CR 01-3046-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

Dated: January 16, 2013

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................5

II. "CONTEXTUAL" MATTERS...........................................................8

A. Scope Of The "Penalty Retrial".................................................9

B. Aggravating Factors..............................................................14

1. The role of aggravating factors........................................14

2. "Statutory aggravating factors".......................................16

a. Factors that can be considered................................16

i. Factors alleged and noticed............................17

ii. Factors that can properly be considered.............18

b. Factors that can be challenged................................22

C. Penalties............................................................................23

1. Penalties vacated.........................................................23

2. Possibility of a death sentence on Count 6..........................23

a. Arguments of the parties.......................................24

b. Controlling authority............................................24

c. Analysis ............................................................ 26d. Summary...........................................................29

3. Possibility of a sentence less than life without parole on all Counts ...................................................................... 29

a. Arguments of the parties.......................................30

b. The statutory sentencing scheme..............................31

c. Analysis ............................................................ 32

i. Johnson's authority.....................................32

ii. The jury's ability to consider lesser penalties......33

iii. The jury's ability to recommend a lesser penalty ..................................................... 36

iv. The jury's ability to impose a lesser penalty........37

d. Summary...........................................................40

D. Necessity Of A Preliminary Evidentiary Showing..........................40

1. Arguments of the parties................................................41

2. Analysis .................................................................... 41

III. CHALLENGES TO STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS................48

IV. CHALLENGES TO THE NON-STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS .................................................................................. 50

A. "Multiple Killings" And "Passage Of Time"...............................50

1. Allegations of the factors ...............................................50

2. Arguments of the parties................................................50

3. Standards for "duplicativeness" .......................................51

4. Analysis .................................................................... 55

B. "Lack of remorse"...............................................................58

1. Allegation of the factor.................................................. 58

2. Arguments of the parties................................................ 59

3. Authority regarding "lack of remorse" as a separate factor ..... 60

4. Analysis .................................................................... 65

C. "Uncharged Criminal Conduct"............................................... 67

1. Allegations of the factors ............................................... 67

2. Duplicativeness ........................................................... 69

3. Inadmissibility in general ............................................... 71

a. Statutory and other limitations ................................ 71

i. Arguments of the parties ............................... 71

ii. The purported statutory bar............................ 72

iii. Admissibility of unadjudicated conduct in capital cases .............................................. 74iv. Admissibility of unadjudicated criminal conduct as an independent aggravating factor.....75

v. Summary .................................................. 78

b. Biased sentencing................................................ 79

c. More prejudicial than probative...............................81

d. Relevance and heightened reliability .........................82

4. Challenges to specific "uncharged criminal conduct" factors ...................................................................... 82

a. Standards for sufficiency of "non-statutory aggravating factors".............................................82

b. The "assault" on Officer Tyler................................90

c. The "perjury" factor ............................................92

d. The "threats and bravado" incidents.........................93

i. Arguments of the parties ...............................94

ii. Analysis .................................................... 94

e. Assisting in the release of Putzier.............................97

i. Arguments of the parties ...............................97

ii. Analysis .................................................... 97

f. Conspiring to help Honken escape ...........................98

g. Uncharged distribution of methamphetamine after 1997................................................................100

i. Arguments of the parties .............................. 100

ii. Analysis ................................................... 100

h. Soliciting a crime of violence ................................. 103

i. Arguments of the parties .............................. 103

ii. Analysis ................................................... 104

D. Future Dangerousness.......................................................... 105

1. Allegation of the factor.................................................105

2. Collateral estoppel/double jeopardy..................................106

3. Limitation to "future dangerousness in prison"...................108

4. Insufficient notice....................................................... 111

5. Sufficiency of the inmate assaults alleged.......................... 113

E. Victim Impact....................................................................114

1. Allegations of the factors .............................................. 114

2. Arguments of the parties...............................................115

3. Analysis ................................................................... 116

V. VINDICTIVENESS.....................................................................118

VI. CONCLUSION...........................................................................122

In this capital case, the defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting five murders in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE murder), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e), and sentenced to death for four of the murders and to life imprisonment without parole for the fifth. However, I ordered a resentencing hearing before a new jury, i.e., a "penalty retrial," as relief on the defendant's § 2255 Motion.¹ This case is now before me on the defendant's challenge to certain aggravating factors in the prosecution's amended notice of intent to seek the death penalty filed in anticipation of the "penalty retrial." The defendant's challenges to the aggravating factors in question are wide-ranging, including contentions that certain aggravating factors are duplicative or are insufficient to justify a sentence of death and that the prosecution's assertion of additional and reformulated aggravating factors at this point in the proceedings is vindictive. The prosecution stands fast on its assertion of all of the challenged aggravating factors, in the manner asserted, as proper and appropriate, because this "penalty retrial" has given the prosecution a "do over," with lessons learned from hindsight, just as it has given the defendant a "do over," owing to her trial counsel's errors. I find that, in their arguments challenging and supporting various aggravating factors, the parties have raised a number of issues relevant to the "context" of the entire "penalty retrial," because those issues have an impact on such things as what evidence will be admissible and what questions the new jury will be required to answer in the "penalty retrial." Thus, this ruling begins with the resolution of those "contextual" issues, before turning to resolution of the defendant's specific challenges to various aggravating factors.

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 24, 2005, a jury convicted defendant Angela Johnson of five counts of aiding and abetting murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE murder) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e), which are capital offenses under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA). See Verdict Form (docket no. 527). These charges arose from the murders, by Johnson and her separately-indicted co-defendant Dustin Honken, who had been charged as the "principal," of two adults, Greg Nicholson and Lori Duncan, and Lori Duncan's two children, Kandi Duncan (age 10) and Amber Duncan (age 6), in one episode in July 1993, and the subsequent murder of another adult, Terry DeGeus, in a separate episode in November 1993. On May 31, 2005, the same jury found Johnson "eligible" for the death penalty on all five CCE murder convictions. See "Eligibility Phase" Verdict Form (docket no. 545). On June 21, 2005, the same jury also entered a "penalty phase" verdict, imposing a life sentence without possibility of parole for the CCE murder of Gregory Nicholson, but sentences of death for the CCE murders of Lori Duncan, Kandi Duncan, Amber Duncan, and Terry DeGeus. "Penalty Phase" Verdict Form (docket no. 593).² On March 22, 2012, however, Igranted, in part, Johnson's §...