United States v. Johnson
40537
A.F.C.C.A.May 2, 2025Background
- Appellant was convicted at a general court-martial of assault consummated by a battery, unlawful entry, and indecent recording, relating to incidents at Aviano Air Base in Italy in August 2022.
- The key conduct involved surreptitious entry into a fellow Airman's (DF's) lodging room and recording of another Airman (ZP) in a locker room shower.
- Evidence at trial included photos and videos found on Appellant’s two iPhones, obtained via multiple search authorizations by a military magistrate.
- The government’s investigation included extensive digital forensics and coordination between law enforcement, legal offices, and outside agencies due to the involvement of a law enforcement victim.
- Appellant challenged, among other things, the suppression of phone evidence, delays in pretrial and post-trial processing, and the admission of evidence of prior acts under Mil. R. Evid. 404(b).
- The military judge denied Appellant’s motions and the appellate court affirmed, finding no errors materially prejudicial to Appellant’s rights.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of evidence from cell phones | Search was not lawfully authorized; lacked probable cause; improper scope | Good faith exception applies; magistrate properly found probable cause | Military judge did not abuse discretion; good faith exception applied, search valid |
| Delay between pretrial restraint and arraignment (speedy trial) | Delay violated speedy trial rights (Article 10, R.C.M. 707); resulted in prejudice | Delays were reasonable, caused by investigation complexity and defense unavailability | No violation; delays reasonable, attributable in part to defense, exclusions proper under rules |
| Admission of prior acts under Mil. R. Evid. 404(b) | Evidence was cumulative and unfairly prejudicial; risked improper character inference | Evidence probative for intent, motive, identity, common plan; judge-alone trial minimizes prejudice | No abuse of discretion; evidence admissible for proper purposes, judge gave due consideration to Rule 403 |
| Factual sufficiency of assault consummated by a battery | Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Appellant touched DF’s foot | Testimony and circumstantial evidence supported the conviction | Evidence factually sufficient; weight accorded to trial judge's credibility determinations |
| Excessive delay in post-trial processing | Delay prejudiced appellant's appellate rights, harmed perception of justice system | No prejudice, delay not egregious; extensions partly at appellant’s request | No due process or Article 66(d) violation; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (magistrate’s role and probable cause standards)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (speedy trial balancing test)
- Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345 (neutral and detached magistrate standard)
- Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (impartial magistrate requirement)