United States v. Aaron Johnson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8135
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Aaron Johnson and his brother were North Dakota potato farmers who held USDA crop-insurance and disaster-relief coverage that paid for losses caused by natural occurrences (not intentional damage).
- In 2006 Johnson reported a total loss from soft rot to stored potatoes at a Cooperstown warehouse and obtained several hundred thousand dollars in USDA indemnity and disaster payments after certifying the rot was natural.
- The USDA investigated; an informant/employee, Leo Borgen, testified that at Johnson’s direction he deliberately induced rot by applying septic products (Rid‑X, Flush), adding frozen potatoes, and increasing heat; other witnesses corroborated statements by Johnson admitting intentional damage.
- The government introduced evidence of large purchases of Rid‑X (one on Johnson’s credit card) and expert testimony that the observed damage was consistent with deliberate application of chemicals, frozen potatoes, and heat—not a dirt‑floor infection.
- A jury convicted Johnson of conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371), making false statements to influence USDA (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1014), and making false statements to law enforcement (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
- At sentencing the district court applied a 14‑point loss enhancement (total loss $400,000–$1,000,000) and a 2‑point obstruction enhancement based on conduct toward the informant, yielding an offense level of 25 and a 48‑month sentence (after a downward variance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Johnson intentionally damaged crop | Gov't: informant testimony, corroborating witness statements, purchases, and expert evidence show intentional damage | Johnson: informant unreliable (criminal history, plea deal, "double cross"); alternative natural‑cause explanation | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; credibility for jury to resolve |
| Sentencing: § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement | Gov't: statements to informant constituted attempted witness influence/bribe | Johnson: comments were nonsensical; not a credible promise to pay or influence testimony | Affirmed — district court reasonably found attempt to influence witness |
| Sentencing: loss‑amount enhancement under § 2B1.1 | Gov't sought enhancement based on total loss; district court applied 14‑point range Johnson requested | Johnson argued different enhancement should apply or error in calculation | Affirmed — court applied the loss range Johnson had argued for; no appealable error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Scofield, 433 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard for sufficiency review viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Keys, 721 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2013) (witness‑credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal)
- United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2010) (review standards: Guidelines interpretation de novo; application of facts for clear error)
- United States v. Thompson, 210 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2000) (affirming obstruction enhancement where defendant’s statements/gestures could be seen as attempts to influence witness)
- United States v. Campbell, 764 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (defendant cannot complain when court applies the enhancement the defendant’s counsel requested)