United States v. Johnson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2547
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Johnson is arrested Jan 29, 2009 with search-warrant raid at his apartment; charged with crack cocaine base possession with intent, MDMA possession with intent, and felon-in-possession; suppression motion based on Miranda filed and denied after a hearing.
- First case 09-CR-83 dismissed without prejudice after Speedy Trial Act concerns and judge recused; new indictment issued June 22, 2010 in a second case 10-CR-121 with similar charges.
- Second case proceeded to trial before Judge Stadtmueller (who later recused before sentencing); jury convicted Johnson on crack-cocaine distribution and felon-in-possession; an aiding-and-abetting instruction referenced a man named “Simon.”
- Judge Randa sentenced Johnson July 21, 2011 to 300 months; applied obstruction of justice enhancement under § 3C1.1 and classified Johnson as a career offender based on prior convictions.
- On appeal, Johnson challenges suppression denial in 09-CR-83, Stadtmueller’s recusal in 10-CR-121, the aiding-and-abetting instruction, the obstruction enhancement, and the career-offender finding.
- The court granted Johnson’s motion to modify the appellate record to include filings from 09-CR-83, signaling that it would address the suppression issue upon supplemental briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Miranda denial in 09-CR-83 is reviewable on appeal. | Johnson argues waiver/forfeiture should bar review; argues plain-error review. | State argues waiver or independent consideration. | Forfeiture; plain-error review available; record to be supplemented. |
| Whether two cases are distinguishable and whether Miranda can be reviewed despite separate indictments. | Johnson treats 09-CR-83 and 10-CR-121 as essentially one proceeding. | Cases are distinct with separate indictments; no automatic appeal of suppression. | Cases are distinguishable; Miranda review remains possible via plain error after record expansion. |
| Whether Rule 12(e) waiver applies to suppression motion in the second case. | Johnson did not renew suppression motion; waiver should bar. | Good cause exceptions may permit relief from waiver. | Good cause found; waiver not cured; review preserved. |
| Whether the district court’s reliance on the suppression denial should be reviewed with supplemental record and briefing. | Record needs supplementation to review suppression. | Record expanded; supplemental briefing ordered. | |
| Whether the aiding-and-abetting instruction, obstruction enhancement, or career-offender finding are properly preserved and reviewable. | Johnson challenges multiple trial and sentencing rulings. | To be addressed in subsequent opinion after briefing on suppression issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (permitting challenge to warrant affidavits for intentional/reckless misrepresentations)
- Anderson v. United States, 604 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2010) (doctrine of waiver/forfeiture; good-faith conduct may be reviewed for plain error)
- Turner v. United States, 651 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussion of waiver/forfeiture standards in criminal appeals)
- Smith v. United States, 406 A.2d 1262 (D.C. 1979) (law-of-the-case-like considerations in suppression issues)