United States v. John Johnson, 43 F.4th 771

Johnson, previously federally convicted and on supervised release, agreed to cooperate with Decatur, Illinois police regarding 2014 cocaine sales; cooperation required court permission under his supervised-release conditions.
Probation officer Gwen Powell informed AUSAs Bohm and Miller; both replied they had “no objection,” and Judge Baker authorized Johnson to cooperate; no federal non-prosecution agreement was requested or executed.
Johnson signed a written Confidential Informant Agreement with the Decatur PD stating he had no immunity from prosecution; he claims he signed without reading and was told he would receive federal immunity.
Later federal indictments charged Johnson for the 2014 drug transactions; he moved to dismiss arguing he had been promised federal immunity and separately moved to dismiss as a discovery/Brady sanction for allegedly withheld emails/texts.
The district court held evidentiary hearings, found no federal non-prosecution agreement, concluded Powell and Jones lacked authority to bind the U.S. Attorney’s Office, denied both motions, and Johnson pleaded guilty reserving appeal; the district court sentenced him to 180 months.

Issue	Johnson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson was promised federal non-prosecution/immunity as part of the cooperation agreement	Decatur officers and Powell told him he would not be prosecuted federally; he reasonably relied on that promise	No federal AUSAs authorized transactional immunity; emails show only permission to cooperate with state authorities; probation/state officers cannot bind U.S. Attorney	No federal agreement; no actual, apparent, or inherent authority to bind federal prosecutors; district court's factual findings affirmed
Whether the Government committed a Brady violation or discovery abuse by late/partial disclosure of emails/texts	Late production and failure to produce U.S. Attorney’s copies deprived defense of effective use and warranted dismissal as sanction	Emails were produced before relevant hearings; contents were not favorable to defendant; no suppression or materiality under Brady	No Brady violation; evidence was available in time and was not materially favorable; denial of dismissal affirmed

United States v. Fuzer, 18 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 1994) (only federal prosecutors can grant informal federal immunity)
United States v. Lilly, 810 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2016) (state or agency promises of federal immunity unenforceable absent federal authority; fundamental-fairness exception is narrow)
United States v. Flemmi, 225 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2000) (informal grants of immunity are the prerogative of U.S. Attorneys)
Staten v. Neal, 880 F.2d 962 (7th Cir. 1989) (federal government not bound by agreements made solely with state agents)
Urso v. United States, 72 F.3d 59 (7th Cir. 1995) (unauthorized acts of persons not agents do not bind the government)
United States v. Long, 511 F.2d 878 (7th Cir. 1975) (government not bound by acts of non-agents)
United States v. Cahill, 920 F.2d 421 (7th Cir. 1990) (dismissal warranted where prosecution follows on testimony taken after promise of immunity by federal prosecutor)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence)
Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885 (2017) (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability of a different outcome)