United States v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 13 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-cr-135 (MJD/LIB) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Gerald Wayne Johnson, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to a general assignment made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, upon the parties' various pretrial Motions. The Court held a Motions Hearing on October 28, 2022, regarding the parties' pretrial Motions for the discovery of evidence, as well as, Defendant's Motions to suppress evidence. (Minutes [Docket No. 30]).
At the Motions Hearing, the parties requested, and were granted, the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing. Upon the completion of that briefing, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers, [Docket No 24], and Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure, [Docket No. 25], were taken under advisement.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Government's Motion for Discovery, [Docket No. 14], is GRANTED, as set forth herein; Defendant's Pretrial Motion for Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence, [Docket No. 20], is GRANTED, as set forth herein; Defendant's Motion for Discovery of Expert Under Rule 16(a)(1)(G), [Docket No. 21], is GRANTED, as set forth herein; Defendant's Motion to Compel Attorney for the Government to Disclose Evidence Favorable to the Defendant, [Docket No. 22], is GRANTED, as set forth herein; and Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection, [Docket No. 23], is GRANTED, as set forth herein.
Further for reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers, [Docket No. 24], be DENIED, and that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure, [Docket No. 25], be DENIED.
I. Background and Statement of Facts
Defendant is charged with two (2) counts of Involuntary Manslaughter in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1151, and 1153(a). (Indictment [Docket No. 1]).
In the morning hours of November 6, 2021, Criminal Investigator Christopher Sumner (hereinafter “CI Sumner”) received a call informing him that there had been a motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle with two occupants in the Pima area of the Red Lake Indian Reservation. (Tr. 9-10).[2] CI Sumner went to the scene of the accident where he “observed the vehicle” to be “basically ripped open.” (Tr. 10). After instructing another law enforcement officer to stay on the scene, CI Sumner proceeded to the Red Lake Hospital “to see who was in the vehicle at the time.” (Tr. 10).
Upon arriving at the Red Lake Hospital at approximately 8:04 a.m., CI Sumner was advised that the subject vehicle's sole passenger, R.M.R., had been pronounced dead. (Tr. 10).
CI Sumner also learned that the driver of the vehicle was Defendant, and Defendant was receiving care for his injuries. (Tr. 10—11).[3] After being provided with Defendant's room location, CI Sumner went to said room where he observed Defendant prone on a medical bed wearing a C-collar and facing upwards. (Tr. 11-12; Gov't's Ex. 2).[4] CI Sumner testified that there were “one or two” members of the medical staff in the room tending to Defendant. (Tr. 11). Defendant had an intravenous line and a blood pressure cuff attached to his person. (Tr. 11-12; Gov't's Ex. 2).
After identifying himself as Red Lake law enforcement officer, CI Sumner approached the side of Defendant's medical bed, and he asked Defendant, “what happened?” (Tr. 12, 16). Defendant initially responded to CI Sumner's questions by asking about the status of the vehicle's passenger to which CI Sumner responded that he did not know about the passenger's status. (Tr. 37). CI Sumner then repeated his question to which Defendant responded that “he was going too fast on Lake Shore” Drive. (Tr. 14, 37). Defendant explained that the was driving approximately 80 to 100 miles per hour when he “hit a patch of ice,” “hit a curve, and then hit a tree” before “everything went black.” (Tr. 14). When CI Sumner asked Defendant who else was in the vehicle at the time of the incident, Defendant identified the passenger by name. (Tr. 16).
When CI Sumner asked Defendant how long he had been drinking, Defendant stated that he had been drinking since approximately 4:00-6:00 p.m. the previous day. (Tr. 17). Defendant asserted that he had consumed “a lot” of alcohol, including “Yukon 100 proof,” as well as, some other bottles throughout the night. (Tr. 19). Defendant said he had been drinking with several people, including R.M.R., Arelia Roy, and Jojo Kingbird. (Tr. 18). Defendant asserted that he believed Ms. Kingbird worked at “the jail” which CI Sumner later verified as correct. (Tr. 19). Defendant also spelled “Arelia” in a letter-by-letter pattern for CI Sumner. (Tr. 19).
Defendant also provided CI Sumner with certain information about Defendant's actions immediately following the motor vehicle incident underlying this action. Defendant stated that following the accident he went to two separate residences seeking assistance, the residence of “the Clouds” and the residence of “Bill and Cindy Spears.” (Tr. 17). CI Sumner knew from his experience on the Red Lake Indian Reservation that both of the identified residences were at the location of the accident underlying this case. (Tr. 18).
After this initial interaction with Defendant, CI Sumner went to his patrol vehicle to retrieve a blood draw kit to obtain a blood sample from Defendant for later testing. (Tr. 22). CI Sumner returned to Defendant's hospital room. (Tr. 22).[5] CI Sumner orally advised Defendant of his Miranda[6] rights, and CI Sumner asked Defendant if he understood those rights to which Defendant responded in the affirmative. (Tr. 22, 24-25). CI Sumner then asked Defendant if he was willing to consent to a blood draw. (Tr. 22, 24-25). Defendant responded, (Tr. 25, 44). CI Sumner did not respond to Defendant's question; instead, CI Sumner repeated his question asking if Defendant was willing to consent to a blood draw. (Tr. 44). Defendant declined to consent to the blood draw. (Tr. 44). CI Sumner responded “okay,” and he walked in the direction of the door. (Tr. 26, 44).
As CI Sumner was walking toward the door to exit the room, Defendant stated, “Okay, I give consent for the blood draw or the blood kit.” (Tr. 27, 44). A member of the hospital's medical staff then preformed the blood draw. (Tr. 27).[7] The interaction between CI Sumer and Defendant lasted approximately ten to fifteen minutes. (Tr. 22).
Later that same morning, at “a little bit before” 9:30 a.m., Red Lake Criminal Investigator Ron Leyba (hereinafter “CI Leyba”) arrived at the Red Lake Hospital. (Tr. 55). After CI Leyba verified the information he had been provided about the motor vehicle accident, he and CI Sumner went to Defendant's hospital room to speak with Defendant and take pictures of Defendant's injuries. (Tr. 56-58). Before entering Defendant's hospital room, CI Leyba activated his audio recorder, and he recorded the entirety of his interaction with Defendant. (Tr. 58-59).[8] When the officers entered Defendant's hospital room, Defendant appeared to be in the same condition as when he first spoke with CI Sumner. (Tr. 57). The officers turned on the light in Defendant's hospital room and observed that the medical staff was no longer in the room. (Tr. 57, 67). During the interaction with Defendant, CI Leyba took at least six pictures of Defendant's person to catalog his injuries. (Tr. 69-71; Def.'s Ex. 1-6).[9]
After CI Leyba and CI Sumner entered Defendant's hospital room, informed Defendant they were going to turn on the light, and turned on the light, the following interaction took place:
(Gov't's Ex. 1).[10] Defendant and CI Leyba then discussed the incident underlying the present case, Defendant's relationship with RMR, and the continued care Defendant would be receiving. (Gov't's Ex. 1). Although Defendant was tearful throughout the interaction, Defendant responded appropriately to each question asked and his recounting of the incident largely correlated...
To continue reading
Request your trial