United States v. Johnson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16517
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Johnson led a large cocaine trafficking conspiracy; confidential informants tied three Illinois properties to his drug activity.
- A controlled cocaine purchase at the Westmoreland residence occurred hours before warrants were sought; surveillance corroborated informants.
- Warrants for Westmoreland, Best Fish House, and State Street residence were executed; authorities seized cash, guns, and drug-processing equipment.
- Lamb, Johnson’s girlfriend, obstructed at the Westmoreland residence by shutting a door and destroying cocaine base while search teams stood outside.
- Johnson was convicted of distributing cocaine and felon-in-possession; Lamb was convicted of obstruction of justice; both were sentenced.
- Johnson appealed suppression, jury instructions, and mistrial issues; Lamb appealed on § 1512(c)(1) scope, foreseeability, and sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Westmoreland warrant supported by probable cause? | Johnson challenges the informant-based probable cause. | Johnson argues insufficient corroboration and reliability. | Probable cause supported; informant’s controlled buy plus corroboration sufficed. |
| Did Lamb receive proper jury instructions on foreseeability under § 1512(c)(1)? | Lamb argues for explicit foreseeability instruction. | Lamb contends instructions were deficient. | Plain error not established; instructions adequately linked to foreseeability. |
| Did the opening misstatement about drug quantity require mistrial? | Johnson claims prejudicial misstatement tainted trial. | Misstatement was isolated and corrected; no prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied. |
| Does 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) apply to destruction of contraband (cocaine base) rather than only records or documents? | Lamb urges narrow reading to restrict § 1512(c)(1) to records. | Lamb argues broader statutory reach should not apply to contraband. | Section 1512(c)(1) reaches destruction of any object, including contraband. |
| Was the sentencing cross-reference to § 2X3.1 proper for Lamb? | Use of underlying offense for cross-reference is appropriate. | Underlying offense should be possession of cocaine base, not conspiracy. | Cross-reference properly applied to the conspiracy as the underlying offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Koerth, 312 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2002) (probable cause analysis for warrant affidavits relying on informants)
- United States v. Dismuke, 593 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2010) (informant reliability and corroboration factors for searches)
- United States v. Bell, 585 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- United States v. Lowe, 516 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2008) (probable cause and reasonable inferences in search warrants)
- United States v. Matthews, 505 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2007) (destruction of evidence and § 1512(c)(1) scope)
- United States v. Sidwell, 440 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2006) (reliability considerations for informants in searches)
- United States v. Ye, 588 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (plain error and credibility considerations)