United States v. Derrick Johnson
916 F.3d 579
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Police arrested Derrick Johnson outside a Madison bar and found a loaded pistol zipped in his jacket, five hydrocodone pills in gem packs, two cell phones, marijuana residue, and powdered antihistamine; one phone contained Facebook messages arranging drug deals.
- A grand jury charged Johnson with possession with intent to distribute hydrocodone (to which he pleaded guilty) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); he proceeded to trial on the firearm count.
- The government designated ATF Special Agent Michael Aalto (and Officer Buccellato) as expert witnesses to explain drug-dealer practices and the relationship between guns and drugs; Johnson moved to exclude their testimony under Rule 702 and for relevance.
- The district court admitted the experts, finding their testimony helpful to jurors unfamiliar with narcotics trade, and allowed a jury instruction that combined the Castillo/Duran “in furtherance” standard with selected Duran factors and a dictionary definition of “facilitate.”
- The jury convicted Johnson on the § 924(c) count; the district court denied a Rule 29 motion and Johnson appealed, arguing (1) faulty jury instructions, (2) erroneous admission of expert testimony, and (3) insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions: whether instruction misstated law or confused jury | Instruction improperly placed a dictionary definition among optional Duran factors, letting jury treat “facilitate” as optional and undermining the Castillo standard | Instruction nonetheless contained Castillo standard and listed Duran factors only as non-exclusive guides; overall instruction correctly stated law | Affirmed — instruction as a whole correctly stated law and guided jury; court cautioned to prefer simplicity but found no error |
| Admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702/Daubert | Aalto’s testimony on drugs–guns link lacked reliable methodology and the court failed to apply Daubert; other testimony (phones, Facebook, packaging) was irrelevant to § 924(c) | Aalto’s extensive law-enforcement experience and training made his testimony reliable and helpful; contextual evidence was relevant to motive and nexus | Affirmed — district court properly exercised gatekeeping; testimony admissible and relevant |
| Relevance of non-firearm evidence (cell phones, Facebook, gem packs) | Such evidence was unnecessary because the government only needed to prove the firearm element | These items provided context and a factual nexus between the firearm and drug-trafficking activity | Affirmed — evidence was relevant and could make a nexus to drug trafficking more probable |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(c) conviction | Evidence did not prove a nexus beyond mere possession of drugs and a gun; reversal required | Combined facts (loaded gun, drugs packaged for sale, corroborating Facebook messages, drug-dealer paraphernalia) permitted a common-sense inference that the gun furthered trafficking | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Duran, 407 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2005) (articulates “in furtherance” standard and endorses factors for jury consideration)
- United States v. Castillo, 406 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2005) (defines “further, advance, move forward, promote or facilitate” standard)
- United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2000) (source of factors courts may consider for nexus between gun and drug activity)
- United States v. DiSantis, 565 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 2009) (review standard for jury instructions)
- United States v. Edwards, 869 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2017) (district courts may modify pattern instructions or draft anew)
- United States v. Gibson, 530 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2008) (instructions must, read as whole, correctly state law)
- United States v. Winbush, 580 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2009) (law-enforcement expert testimony on dealer methods is proper and helpful)
- United States v. Foster, 939 F.2d 445 (7th Cir. 1991) (experts link jury to narcotics subculture and modus operandi)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping adapts to expert type and methodology)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (expert admissibility requires relevance and reliable foundation)
- United States v. Tingle, 880 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2018) (upholding admission of experienced law-enforcement expert without full Daubert hearing)
- United States v. Eller, 670 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2012) (mere proximity of gun and drugs insufficient; requires nexus to trafficking)
- United States v. Brown, 724 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2013) (not all Duran factors weigh equally; courts select factors relevant to the case)