United States v. Johnson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18024
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Johnson was convicted by jury of receipt of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2) and possession under §2252(a)(4)(B).
- Indictment charged receipt either by interstate/foreign shipment or materials transported, creating jurisdictional element.
- Guilt on receipt hinged on evidence that images were downloaded from the Internet and that Johnson’s computer traveled in interstate commerce.
- Johnson testified and recanted his confession; the government’s expert could not confirm the images’ source.
- District court instructed jurors under an erroneous interpretation of the jurisdictional element; government conceded a Double Jeopardy concern if both counts stood.
- Court reverses and vacates Johnson’s receipt conviction and remands for resentencing on the possession conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence for the receipt conviction | Johnson | Government | Conviction reversed and vacated |
| Double Jeopardy implications of dual convictions for same images | Johnson | Government | Remand on possession; receipt conviction vacated; DD unresolved as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Inman v. United States, 558 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2009) (sufficiency challenge with erroneous instruction requires rigorous review per Inman)
- United States v. Muhlenbruch, 634 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that dual §2252(a)(2), (a)(4)(B) convictions based on same images violated Double Jeopardy)
- Scofield, 433 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard for typical sufficiency challenges: view in government’s favor; no weighing of credibility)
- Garcia-Hernandez, 530 F.3d 657 (8th Cir. 2008) (follows standard that appellate court does not reassess witness credibility in sufficiency review)
- Van Nguyen, 602 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2010) (reaffirmation of standard and deference to jury verdicts)
- Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1987) (harmless-error framework informing review of instructional error)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless-error principles applied to jury instructions)
- United States v. Guevara, 408 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2005) (cited for government-friendly sufficiency standard in some circuits)
- United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999) (cited for alternative sufficiency standard in some circuits)