443 F. App'x 85
6th Cir.2011Background
- Billy Johnson was convicted in the district court of murder for hire on Counts One through Three and related charges after a jury trial.
- Prior to trial, the court reserved ruling on in limine motions to admit certain co-conspirator statements; the court admitted Martha Johnson’s prior statements to show relationship breakdown.
- The government’s witnesses testified to a scheme to murder Martha Johnson and to pay out $45,000 from life insurance, with Winberry acting as the killer for hire.
- Evidence showed the defendant solicited/arranged the murder in 1999, including financial dealings from Martha Johnson’s estate after her death.
- The district court sentenced Johnson to three life terms and ordered $611,893.56 in restitution to Martha Johnson’s estate.
- On appeal, Johnson challenges judgments of acquittal and for a new trial, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and restitution, which this court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of Rule 29 was proper | Johnson contends Winberry’s credibility invalidates the verdict. | Winberry’s testimony is incredible as a matter of law. | No reversible error; reasonable jurors could believe the evidence. |
| Whether Rule 33 new trial was warranted | Evidence viewed in prosecution’s favor suffices for guilt. | The evidence preponderates against the verdict. | Not an abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Admission of Winberry’s co-conspirator statements under 801(d)(2)(E) | Statements to Haynes Johnson and Elrod were within the conspiracy and in furtherance. | Conspiracy ended with the murder; statements should be excluded. | Properly admitted; conspiracy extended to post-murder payments. |
| Admission of prior consistent statements under 801(d)(1)(B) | Statements by Winberry and Haynes Johnson rehabilitate credibility. | Need for proper antecedent foundation and timing. | Satisfied requirements; admissible. |
| Admission of Coleman Thomas/Z Awareness testimony and 404(b) evidence | Estate-disposition evidence shows motive and ongoing conspiracy. | Evidence should be excluded as improper 404(b) or lack of foundation. | Properly admitted as probative of motive; harmless error if any. |
| Restitution under MVRA | Estate victim supports full restitution; must restore as much as possible. | Murder for hire does not damage estate directly; challenge to amount. | Restitution awarded to the estate; amount properly calculated at $611,893.56. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 F.2d 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. McGee, 529 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of denial of judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Chavis, 296 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2002) (credibility and evidence weighing in sufficiency review)
- United States v. Enright, 579 F.2d 986 (6th Cir. 1978) (co-conspirator statements framework)
- United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344 (6th Cir. 1993) (hearsay exceptions involving statements not offered for truth)
- United States v. Vandeberg, 201 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2000) (MVRA restitution framework)
- United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006) (MVRA restitution scope and purpose)
- Weathers, 6th Cir. 1999 (6th Cir. 1999) (interstate commerce nexus need only facilitate crime)