24 F.4th 590
6th Cir.2022Background:
- Michael Johnson was federally indicted for unlawful imprisonment, strangulation/suffocation of an intimate partner, interstate domestic violence, witness tampering, and assault arising from violent incidents on the Isabella Indian Reservation; a jury convicted him on all counts.
- Johnson had multiple appointed attorneys; after conflicts and outbursts he sought to proceed pro se and the district court allowed him to represent himself with standby counsel following a limited colloquy.
- During trial the court admitted victim photos, Facebook screenshots and jail letters; Johnson testified and denied ever choking or restraining women, after which the government called two former partners as rebuttal impeachment witnesses.
- Standby counsel had not subpoenaed witnesses Johnson claimed he wanted to call; the court concluded Johnson had not timely submitted witness lists and refused to review documents he offered during trial.
- The PSR produced an advisory Guidelines range driven by career-offender status; the district court imposed an aggregate sentence of 864 months; Johnson appealed raising (inter alia) Faretta-waiver, compulsory-process, 404(b)/403, and sentencing errors.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed Johnson’s conviction and sentence, finding the Faretta inquiry and denial of compulsory process deficient, rejected the 404(b) challenge, and remanded for reassignment and a new trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of waiver to proceed pro se (Faretta) | Johnson: district court failed to conduct Bench Book–style colloquy; waiver not knowing, voluntary, intelligent | Government: Johnson’s conduct and the court’s warnings were sufficient; he effectively waived by conduct | Court: Faretta inquiry inadequate; Johnson did not knowingly waive; reversal on this ground |
| Denial of compulsory process / failure to secure defense witnesses | Johnson: court wrongly concluded he didn’t submit witness lists and refused to review his documents; deprived right to present defense | Government: Johnson never subpoenaed witnesses and was not diligent; responsibility lay with pro se defendant | Court: District court prematurely concluded no lists; refusal to review documents and failure to help procure subpoenas violated compulsive-process right; reversal |
| Admission of prior bad acts (404(b)/403 and impeachment) | Johnson: testimony by former partners was unfair prior-bad-acts evidence and unduly prejudicial | Government: testimony was permissible rebuttal/impeachment after Johnson denied ever choking/ restraining women | Court: Admission proper as impeachment under Rule 404(a)(2); limiting instruction given; any error harmless |
| Sentencing (Guidelines analogy, grouping, §3553(a) consideration) | Johnson: improper analogy to §2A4.1, grouping and enhancements; district court failed to meaningfully consider §3553(a) factors | Government: Guidelines application and explanation were adequate | Court: Analogy to §2A4.1 and grouping upheld, but sentencing procedure was deficient—district court did not adequately explain consideration of §3553(a); sentence procedurally and substantively unreasonable; vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation; court must ensure waiver is knowing and intelligent)
- United States v. McBride, 362 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2004) (Bench Book–style Faretta inquiry required in this circuit)
- United States v. Bankston, 820 F.3d 215 (6th Cir. 2016) (model colloquy may be substantially complied with when objectives are met)
- United States v. Erskine, 355 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2004) (de novo review appropriate for unpreserved Faretta challenges)
- United States v. Epley, 52 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 1995) (comparison of state unlawful-imprisonment statutes to federal §2A4.1 analogy)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for reviewing substantive and procedural reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements of procedural-reasonableness review under §3553(a))