Case Law Johnson v. United States

Johnson v. United States

Document Cited Authorities (406) Cited in (121) Related

860 F.Supp.2d 663

82 Fed.R.Serv.3d 128

Angela JOHNSON, Petitioner,

v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

Nos. C 09–3064–MWB, CR 01–3046–MWB.

United States District Court,

N.D. Iowa,

Central Division.

March 22, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Marcia A. Morrissey, Santa Monica, CA, Michael Burt, Law Office of Michael Burt, Mohammad Ali Hamoudi, Nancy S. Pemberton, Pemberton & Associates, San Francisco, CA, Michael Edward Lawlor, Lawlor & Englert, LLC, Greenbelt, MD, Ilann M. Maazel, Kennisha A. Austin, Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Charles J. Williams, U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT FEDERAL CAPITAL CONVICTIONS AND DEATH SENTENCES

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                                                   ¦682    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Factual Background                                         ¦682   ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Criminal Proceedings                                       ¦685   ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦C.  ¦Section 2255 Proceedings                                   ¦688   ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦D.  ¦Summary Of Claims                                          ¦692   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                                                     ¦      ¦
+-----+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦II.  ¦VIABILITY OF “NEW” CLAIMS IN JOHNSON'S SECOND AND THIRD AMENDED § 2255 MOTIONS  ¦697   ¦
¦     ¦                                                                                     ¦      ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦“New” Claims In The Second Amended § 2255 Motion      ¦697   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Arguments of the parties                              ¦697   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦The respondent's argument                          ¦697   ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦The petitioner's argument                          ¦697   ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦The respondent's reply                             ¦699   ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Analysis                                              ¦700   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Deadlines for § 2255 claims                       ¦700   ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Timeliness of amendments                           ¦706   ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.    ¦Rule 15(a)                                   ¦706    ¦
+---+---+---+---+------+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.   ¦Rule 15(b)                                   ¦710    ¦
+---+---+---+---+------+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦iii.  ¦Rule 15(c) and “relation back.”          ¦713    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Application of the standards                       ¦715   ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Preliminary matters                           ¦715    ¦
+---+---+---+---+-----+----------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦The challenged claims                         ¦716    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B.  ¦The ‘New’ Claim In The Third Amended § 2255 Motion    ¦723   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Arguments of the parties                              ¦724   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦The petitioner's argument                          ¦724   ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦The respondent's argument                          ¦725   ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Analysis                                              ¦726   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Timeliness                                         ¦726   ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Futility                                           ¦728   ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦c.  ¦Summary                                            ¦731   ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦C.  ¦Summary Of Claims To Be Considered On The Merits           ¦732   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦      ¦                                                              ¦      ¦
+------+--------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.  ¦STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO JOHNSON'S CLAIMS                      ¦736   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Standards For § 2255 Relief                               ¦736   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Scope of the remedy                                   ¦736   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Section 2255 relief in capital cases                  ¦738   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Appellate review                                      ¦739   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B.  ¦Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel                          ¦739   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Ineffective assistance of trial counsel               ¦740   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦Overview                                           ¦740   ¦
+----+----+---+----+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Deficient performance                              ¦740   ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦i.    ¦Strategic choices                            ¦741    ¦
+---+---+---+---+------+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦ii.   ¦Presumption of adequate representation       ¦742    ¦
+---+---+---+---+------+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦   ¦   ¦   ¦   ¦iii.  ¦Role of ABA standards                        ¦742    ¦
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2015
Langdeaux v. Lund
"...of the history of federal habeas relief, before and after it was extended to state prisoners, is set out in Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 737 n.23 (N.D. Iowa 2012). 5. Although the Court in Strickland found that it was only necessary to consider the "prejudice" prong, so th..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
United States v. Johnson
"...in part, Johnson's § 2255 Motion by vacating her four death sentences and one life sentence for CCE murder. Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663 (N.D. Iowa 2012). The prosecution then opted for a resentencing hearing before a new jury, i.e. , a "penalty retrial," pursuant to former..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2012
United States v. Johnson
"...enterprise (CCE murder), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e), a provision of the Anti–Drug Abuse Act (ADAA). See Johnson v. United States, 860 F.Supp.2d 663 (N.D.Iowa 2012). The prosecution then opted for a “penalty retrial,” to determine the penalty for Johnson's convictions, rather than wi..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
United States v. Johnson
"...in part, Johnson's § 2255 Motion by vacating her four death sentences and one life sentence for CCE murder. Johnson v. United States, 860 F.Supp.2d 663 (N.D.Iowa 2012). The prosecution then opted for a resentencing hearing before a new jury, i.e., a “penalty retrial,” pursuant to former 21 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2014
Velazquez-Ramirez v. Fayram
"...of the history of federal habeas relief, before and after it was extended to state prisoners, is set out in Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 737 n.23 (N.D. Iowa 2012). 5. Although the Court in Strickland found that it was only necessary to consider the "prejudice" prong, so th..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
2 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 54 Núm. 3, June 2021 – 2021
Shifting the Burden: Presuming Prejudice for Failing to Contact an Alibi Witness.
"...d sub nom. Lambert v. Mackie, No. 16-2241, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18068 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2017). (81.) See Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 777, 920 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (describing trial counsel's performance and calling it "grossly constitutionally inadequate"); Bledsoe v. State,..."
Document | Vol. 54 Núm. 4, September 2021 – 2021
Shifting the Burden: Presuming Prejudice for Failing to Contact an Alibi Witness.
"...sub nom. Lambert v. Mackie, No. 16-2241, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18068 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2017). (81.) See Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 777, 920 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (describing trial counsel's performance and calling it "grossly constitutionally inadequate"); Bledsoe v. State, 1..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 54 Núm. 3, June 2021 – 2021
Shifting the Burden: Presuming Prejudice for Failing to Contact an Alibi Witness.
"...d sub nom. Lambert v. Mackie, No. 16-2241, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18068 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2017). (81.) See Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 777, 920 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (describing trial counsel's performance and calling it "grossly constitutionally inadequate"); Bledsoe v. State,..."
Document | Vol. 54 Núm. 4, September 2021 – 2021
Shifting the Burden: Presuming Prejudice for Failing to Contact an Alibi Witness.
"...sub nom. Lambert v. Mackie, No. 16-2241, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18068 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 2017). (81.) See Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 777, 920 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (describing trial counsel's performance and calling it "grossly constitutionally inadequate"); Bledsoe v. State, 1..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2015
Langdeaux v. Lund
"...of the history of federal habeas relief, before and after it was extended to state prisoners, is set out in Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 737 n.23 (N.D. Iowa 2012). 5. Although the Court in Strickland found that it was only necessary to consider the "prejudice" prong, so th..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
United States v. Johnson
"...in part, Johnson's § 2255 Motion by vacating her four death sentences and one life sentence for CCE murder. Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663 (N.D. Iowa 2012). The prosecution then opted for a resentencing hearing before a new jury, i.e. , a "penalty retrial," pursuant to former..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2012
United States v. Johnson
"...enterprise (CCE murder), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e), a provision of the Anti–Drug Abuse Act (ADAA). See Johnson v. United States, 860 F.Supp.2d 663 (N.D.Iowa 2012). The prosecution then opted for a “penalty retrial,” to determine the penalty for Johnson's convictions, rather than wi..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
United States v. Johnson
"...in part, Johnson's § 2255 Motion by vacating her four death sentences and one life sentence for CCE murder. Johnson v. United States, 860 F.Supp.2d 663 (N.D.Iowa 2012). The prosecution then opted for a resentencing hearing before a new jury, i.e., a “penalty retrial,” pursuant to former 21 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2014
Velazquez-Ramirez v. Fayram
"...of the history of federal habeas relief, before and after it was extended to state prisoners, is set out in Johnson v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 2d 663, 737 n.23 (N.D. Iowa 2012). 5. Although the Court in Strickland found that it was only necessary to consider the "prejudice" prong, so th..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.