United States v. Johnson, No. 17-3776 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for nine counts of wire fraud and one count of money laundering. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by finding that defendant's consent to search the vehicle was voluntary. In this case, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's finding that although defendant was being watched by deputies while on the property, did not have access to a phone, and was told that a warrant would be sought whether or not he consented to a search of his truck, his consent was not mere acquiescence to government authority.
The court rejected defendant's contention that the government failed to prove venue was proper in the District of Minnesota where a reasonable jury could find that it was more likely than not that the emails at issue were sent from or received in Minnesota. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant, and his sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The court also held that the $2.1 million personal money judgment forfeiture did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. Finally, the court rejected defendant's arguments in two pro se appeals as without merit.
Court Description: [Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not plainly err in adopting the magistrate judge's finding that defendant's consent to the search of his truck was voluntarily given; venue for the wire fraud counts was proper in Minnesota as a reasonable jury could find that the emails charged in the counts were sent from or received in Minnesota; the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant and in giving greater weight to factors other than Johnson's baseless promise of repaying the victims of his fraud; the court's $2.1 million personal judgment forfeiture did not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines; arguments raised in defendant's two pro se appeals were without merit and are rejected.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 13, 2020.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.