United States v. Michael Johnson, 39 F.4th 1047

On May 6, 2019, J.W.S. (the victim) reported that her half-brother, Michael Joe Johnson, performed a sex act on her while she was asleep at his home after drinking; she said she awoke as he was completing the act.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Agents Cavanaugh and Vivier went to Johnson’s home the same day; Johnson voluntarily accompanied them to their vehicle and was interviewed twice in the agents’ car without Miranda warnings, restraints, or locked doors.
After the first interview Johnson provided a DNA sample; laboratory testing matched Johnson’s DNA to semen found on vaginal swabs from J.W.S.
Following receipt of the DNA results, agents conducted a second voluntary vehicle interview; Johnson again denied the assault in those interviews but later testified at trial that he had sex with J.W.S. and that it was consensual.
The district court denied Johnson’s motion to suppress the statements from the two vehicle interviews and denied his motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury found him guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(B) (sexual act with an incapacitated person).
On appeal Johnson argued (1) his interview statements should have been suppressed as custodial (Miranda) and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the agents’ interviews were custodial such that Miranda warnings were required	Gov’t: Interviews were non-custodial — Johnson voluntarily accompanied agents, was not restrained, doors/windows unlocked, and was free to leave	Johnson: Interview was custodial; agents’ statement that they “needed to talk” and the setting (agents’ vehicle) would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave	Held: Not custodial. Considering Griffin factors and totality of circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to end the interview; suppression properly denied
Whether evidence was insufficient and judgment of acquittal should have been granted	Gov’t: Victim’s testimony plus DNA linking Johnson to semen provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict	Johnson: No reasonable jury could credit the victim over him; alleged inconsistencies undermine her testimony	Held: Evidence sufficient. Jury’s credibility determinations are binding; minor inconsistencies do not require acquittal and defendant’s inconsistent statements supported the jury crediting the victim

United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1990) (multi-factor test for custodial interrogation analysis)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) (custody determination is an objective inquiry)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (objective circumstances govern custody analysis)
United States v. Hoeffener, 950 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2020) (front-seat questioning in police car not custodial where no restraints)
United States v. Soderman, 983 F.3d 369 (8th Cir. 2020) (retention of free movement supports non-custodial finding)
United States v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002) (two-way discussion and candid questioning weigh against police-dominated atmosphere)
United States v. Jones, 628 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir. 2011) (appellate deference to jury credibility; only extreme contradictions warrant reversal)
United States v. Kirkie, 261 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2001) (victim testimony may be credited despite discrepancies)
United States v. Trotter, 721 F.3d 501 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Braxton, 112 F.3d 777 (4th Cir. 1997) (officers’ colloquial phrase “we need to talk” does not by itself create custody)
United States v. Njoroge, 25 F.4th 555 (8th Cir. 2022) (jury credibility determinations are largely unreviewable)
United States v. Seibel, 712 F.3d 1229 (8th Cir. 2013) (victim’s testimony alone can support conviction)