United States v. Mason Johnson
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2303
7th Cir.2014Background
- Johnson was convicted by jury of robbing three banks and sentenced to 220 months’ imprisonment.
- Principal testimony came from Prince, who admitted planning and committing the robberies with Johnson.
- Prosecution sought to bolster Prince’s testimony with Williams’s eyewitness identification of Johnson.
- Williams identified Johnson from a six-photo array after riding with the robbery suspect and a stranger.
- Johnson argued the district court erred in admitting Williams’s identification testimony and that the photo spread was unnecessarily suggestive.
- The panel affirmed the conviction and addressed counsel’s conduct, sanctioning Brindley for deceit and imposing a $2,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in admitting Williams’s identification. | Johnson argues the array was unnecessarily suggestive. | State contends the array was not suggestive and admissible. | No reversible error; the array not unnecessarily suggestive. |
| Whether Brindley’s handling of the transcript violated Rule 30(b)(1) and Rule 30(d). | Brindley failed to ensure transcript and misrepresented appendix contents. | Brindley’s conduct did not affect the outcome; appeal shortcomings were immaterial. | Yes, violation; Brindley sanctioned and required to pay $2,000. |
| Whether the court should consider the implications of the omitted transcript on appellate review. | Missing transcript hampered evaluation of district court reasons. | Record ultimately supplemented; impact minimal on outcome. | The abridged record did not alter result; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (identification standards; due process not violated by suggestive procedure unless irreparably misleading)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (irreparable misidentification standard in suppression analysis)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (multiplicity of factors in eyewitness identification reliability)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing identification reliability)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (due process considerations in identification procedures)
- Ford v. United States, 683 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2012) (court’s approach to identification procedures and reliability)
- Arrington v. United States, 159 F.3d 1069 (7th Cir. 1998) (array characteristics in eyewitness identifications)
- United States v. Harris, 281 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002) ( appellate review of district court findings of fact)