Opinion ID: 2978433
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-examination of Johnson’s wife

Text: Johnson asserts that the Government committed misconduct in its crossexamination of his wife (at the time of trial, his girlfriend) Kena Johnson (“Mrs. Johnson”). Johnson’s defense at trial was that he could not have participated in the robbery, which took place in December of 2001, because he was still impaired by an 2 Rule 403 states: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. No. 08-1662 United States v. Johnson Page 10 Achilles-tendon injury sustained in April of that year. Johnson offered several witnesses to testify about his injury, including Mrs. Johnson and the surgeon who operated on him and monitored his recovery. Mrs. Johnson testified that Johnson was unable to drive a car after the injury, and that he had moved to his parents’ one-story house from April of 2001 to February of 2002 to avoid climbing stairs. The Government cross-examined Mrs. Johnson as follows: Government: Do [sic] you ever work at the Black Orchid? . . . Mrs. Johnson: No, I did not. Government: Miss Johnson, isn’t it true that you have given false names when you were contacted before by police? Mrs. Johnson: No. Government: Have you used the name Marie Bush? Mrs. Johnson: No. Government: Have you used the name Chanille Johnson? Mrs. Johnson: No. Government: Do you know who those people are? Mrs. Johnson: Have no idea. Government: What about the name Tiffany Watson? Mrs. Johnson: No. Government: Have you used -- isn’t it true you’ve used a number of different dates of birth? Mrs. Johnson: No. Government: Isn’t it true you’ve used at least three different Social Security numbers? No. 08-1662 United States v. Johnson Page 11 Mrs. Johnson: No. . . . Government: One more thing. You were born in Pennsylvania, correct? Mrs. Johnson: No. Government: Where were you born? Mrs. Johnson: Reno, Nevada. Government: You’re aware that your husband has friends in Pennsylvania? Mrs. Johnson: No, I’m not. (ROA Vol. 5 at 75-76, 81.) Johnson’s counsel objected to this line of questioning and asked the judge to instruct the jury to disregard it. The Government claimed its questions were based in good faith on a Law Enforcement Intelligence Network (“LEIN”) printout showing what appeared to be a number of aliases for Mrs. Johnson. After examining the printout, the