United States v. Linn Johnson
684 F. App'x 571
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Linn H. Johnson pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).
- During custodial interviews (one video-recorded), Johnson admitted repeatedly sexually touching his seven‑year‑old niece and that the conduct occurred more than once.
- The PSR and district court credited those admissions and applied a five‑level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for a "pattern of activity involving sexual abuse of a minor" under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5).
- The district court denied a two‑level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 because Johnson denied the abusive conduct at sentencing.
- Johnson argued on appeal that his custodial admissions were unreliable because he was drowsy during the recorded interview, and that the drowsiness undermined the application of the § 2G2.2(b)(5) enhancement.
- The Seventh Circuit found Johnson forfeited the reliability challenge by not properly raising it below, applied plain‑error review, and affirmed the sentence based on the PSR and the recorded interview clips.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/reliability of custodial statements used in PSR | Government: PSR may rely on defendant’s admissions and recorded interview absent timely challenge | Johnson: Statements unreliable because he was drowsy/falling asleep during the recorded interview | Forfeiture: Johnson did not properly challenge reliability below; plain‑error review fails; court affirmed reliance on admissions |
| Application of § 2G2.2(b)(5) enhancement for a pattern of sexual abuse | Government: Admissions show multiple incidents constituting a pattern | Johnson: Incidents were not two distinct sexual acts; some conduct was non‑sexual (medication application) | Court found admissions established repeated incidents; enhancement proper |
| Denial of acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1 | Government: Denial of conduct at sentencing precludes acceptance reduction | Johnson: Maintained arguments about nature/number of incidents; did not timely assert drowsiness undermining admissions | Court affirmed denial because Johnson falsely denied abusive conduct at sentencing |
| Standard of review for unpreserved challenges to PSR facts | Government: Objection must be raised and supported with evidence to challenge PSR; absent that, district court may rely on PSR | Johnson: Requested plain‑error relief based on drowsiness affecting reliability | Court applied forfeiture/plain‑error framework and found no obvious error affecting substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salinas, 365 F.3d 582 (7th Cir.) (defendant must produce evidence to call PSR facts into question)
- United States v. Mustread, 42 F.3d 1097 (7th Cir.) (same principle on contesting PSR accuracy)
- United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820 (7th Cir.) (district court may rely on PSR in absence of proper objection)
- United States v. Artley, 489 F.3d 813 (7th Cir.) (PSR reliance where defendant fails to contest facts)
- United States v. Knox, 624 F.3d 865 (7th Cir.) (forfeiture vs. waiver distinction; forfeiture triggers plain‑error review)
- United States v. Kirkland, 567 F.3d 316 (7th Cir.) (district court need not invent arguments not raised by counsel)
- United States v. Galbraith, 200 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir.) (district court may rely on PSR unless it contains obvious inconsistencies)
- United States v. Burns, 843 F.3d 679 (7th Cir.) (plain‑error reversal reserved for obvious defects affecting substantial rights)