United States v. Christopher Johnson
874 F.3d 1078
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- On June 17, 2013, Deputy Christopher Johnson and another deputy subdued pretrial detainee C.O.; the detainee was later placed in a safety cell after force was used.
- Johnson prepared a safety-cell report (and an incident/use-of-force report was required after C.O. complained of pain) but did not mention that another deputy kicked/struck the detainee.
- A grand jury indicted Kirsch and Johnson for assault under 18 U.S.C. § 242; Johnson was additionally indicted for obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) for omitting material information from reports.
- After two trials (first mistrial), a jury acquitted Johnson of assault but convicted him of obstruction; Johnson moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, arguing insufficient federal nexus per Fowler v. United States.
- The district court applied Fowler’s “reasonable likelihood” federal-nexus test and denied the Rule 29 motion; the Ninth Circuit reviews sufficiency of the evidence de novo.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed Johnson’s obstruction conviction, holding the Government failed to prove a reasonable likelihood that Johnson’s reports would reach federal officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1512(b)(3) requires a federal-nexus showing under Fowler | Government: Fowler inapplicable because this case involved actual communications to federal officers, not a hypothetical | Johnson: Fowler applies; Govt must show a reasonable likelihood the reports would reach federal officers | Fowler applies to § 1512(b)(3); the court so held |
| Whether the Government proved a "reasonable likelihood" that Johnson’s reports would reach federal officers | Govt: evidence of Graham training, oath to uphold Constitution, expert testimony referencing FBI review shows federal nexus | Johnson: such evidence is remote and speculative; no contemporaneous indication reports would reach federal authorities | Held: Evidence was insufficient—only a remote or hypothetical possibility, so conviction cannot stand |
| Sufficiency of evidence standard on appeal | Govt: jury verdict should be upheld under Jackson deference | Johnson: even under Jackson, no rational juror could find the federal-nexus element | Applying Jackson de novo review, the court reversed the conviction |
| What evidence would satisfy Fowler’s federal-nexus requirement | Govt: (implicit) current trial evidence enough | Johnson: (implicit) needed contemporaneous contacts with federal authorities or clear basis to expect federal receipt | Court: evidence showing contact/coordination with federal officials, prior federal investigations, or a practice of information-sharing would likely suffice; such evidence was absent here |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011) (requires a “reasonable likelihood” that obstructive conduct would prevent communication to federal officers)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (clarifying de novo sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- United States v. Veliz, 800 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2015) (applying Fowler’s federal-nexus test to § 1512(b)(3))
- United States v. Chafin, 808 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2015) (vacating a § 1512(b)(3) conviction for failure to apply Fowler’s standard)