Court Opinion

ID: 9495719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:09:04.666968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:10.111379
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The district court found Johnson attempted to suborn perjury based solely upon the “context and syntax” of Johnson’s letter to McCawley. The government did not offer any evidence, other than the letter itself, to prove any of the statements in the letter were false. The district court theorized, “this may very well fall into the category ‘you know it when you see it.’ ” Because I do not “see it” and because a fundamental principle of our judicial system requires that the government prove its case, I respectfully dissent.
No presumption of falsity worked in the government’s favor when it offered Johnson’s letter. The government still bore the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Johnson willfully attempted to suborn perjury. See United States v. O’Dell, 204 F.3d 829, 836 (8th Cir.2000). Perjury occurs when a “witness testifying under oath ... gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.” United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1621(1)) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n. 2 (When applying section 3C1.1 to a defendant’s statements, “the court should be cognizant that inaccurate testimony or statements sometimes may result from confusion, mistake, or faulty memory and, thus, not all inaccurate testimony or statements necessarily reflect a willful attempt to obstruct justice.”).
These essential elements of perjury cannot be presumed, but must be proved. The district court’s reliance on “you know it when you see it” either presumes materiality, willfulness and falseness or relies on judicial intuition. Judicial intuition is helpful, but intuition alone is not enough to increase punishment. Proof is. By simply offering the letter, the government did not prove Johnson willfully intended to elicit materially false testimony, rather than being confused, mistaken or subject to a faulty memory.
The probation office suggested the court evaluate the letter by obtaining the direct testimony of McCawley at the sentencing hearing. PSR at 22. The government chose not to call McCawley at the sentencing hearing, which may have been based on the assumption McCawley would have substantiated the truthfulness of the letter’s statements.5 At oral argument, our court asked government counsel to identify any evidence that shows any material *821statement in the letter was false. Counsel relied solely on the “context and syntax” of the letter and could not identify one false statement through independent evidence. Only a presumption of falsity could substantiate the government’s interpretation of the letter.
Although Johnson’s letter creates a natural suspicion that he attempted to suborn perjury, the government presented absolutely no evidence to substantiate that natural suspicion. The assertions in the letter are the same assertions Johnson professed in his interview for the presen-tence investigation. The PSR did not refute Johnson’s assertions. Johnson did not deny writing the letter and was “adamant that the events on which he was ‘coaching’ McCawley are accurate.” PSR at 7, ¶ 16. “Coaching” witnesses is a practice (or an art) regularly used by lawyers. Coaching a witness by refreshing one’s memory or informing the. witness what others recall is not suborning perjury unless the information is materially false and knowingly so. Johnson is not a lawyer. He has only an eighth grade education and a borderline IQ of 71. His attempt to coach McCawley should not be judged by the same standard as a lawyer’s preparation of a witness.
In finding Johnson attempted to suborn perjury, the district court did not hear testimony, make credibility determinations, or consider independent evidence, but simply read Johnson’s jailhouse letter. Because the district court made no fáctual findings and simply reviewed an uncontested letter, as we are capable of doing, our review should be de novo.6 The letter alone does not support a finding of false testimony and a willful attempt to suborn perjury. I respectfully dissent and would reverse the obstruction of justice enhancement based on the government’s failure to meet its burden of proof.7

. After the sentencing hearing, Johnson submitted an affidavit from McCawley verifying the accuracy of the statements contained in the letter. McCawley is now deceased.

. An obstruction of justice enhancement for perjury should be based on findings of fact, which are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Farmer, 312 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir.2002); but see United States v. Cox, 985 F.2d 427, 433 (8th Cir.1993) (materiality is a question of law based on the factual situation). However, the district court made no factual findings and simply interpreted an uncontested letter, which does not warrant a clearly erroneous standard of review. See United States v. Tilford, 224 F.3d 865, 867 (6th Cir.2000) (de novo standard of review applies to uncontested facts); United States v. Nguyen, 190 F.3d 656, 660 (5th Cir.1999) (same); McGurk v. Stenberg, 163 F.3d 470, 473 (8th Cir.1998) ("We review questions of ineffective assistance of counsel based on an undisputed factual record de novo.”); United States v. Gomez, 38 F.3d 1031, 1036 (8th Cir.1994) (application of law to "historical facts” reviewed de novo). Furthermore, the district court's "findings” here are more akin to contract interpretation than a factual finding of perjury, which would also mandate a de novo review. See, e.g., United States v. Austin, 255 F.3d 593, 596 (8th Cir.2001) (issues regarding interpretation of plea agreement are reviewed de novo according to general contract interpretation principles). This case simply does not lend itself to a deferential standard of review.

. The letter in full reads (PSR at 5, ¶ 15):
Dear Mac, Well buddy they got me. I am going to have to plead guilty and try and get a reduced sentence under "diminished mental capacity.” I have to show that although I am convicted, I have a significantly impaired ability to (A) understand the wrongfulness of the behavior comprising the offense or to exercise the power of reason. To think clearly and to make logical and rational choices and decisions. I'm going to need you to testify to the following for me at sentencing. Read this over and over good before you come to court. Stories have to match — OK!
On January 23, 2000, You came down to stay at my apartment with me and Maurice. Maurice was living with [me] because he *822had been evicted from his apartment a week or 2 earlier.
On January 24, 2000, You drove me down to Clifton Hill in your mother's car and brought a bottle of zanax from a guy in Cliffton Hill
On the way back to Columbia I took a bunch of them and passed out. When we got back to the apartment You and Maurice carried me into the house and placed me into my bed. Hours later I woke up and ran out of ciggaretts (sic). You were washing dishes. I came into the kicthen (sic) wearing Black sweat pants with no pockets and a dark blue tea (sic) shirt. I asked you for $3 to go buy some ciggeretts (sic) out of $512 of my mental disability check you were keeping for me. Because I loose [sic] money, hid it and can not find it and people steal my money from be [sic] because of my mental disability you all do not let me keep money or drive cars. You gave me $3 and I placed it in my sock and told you I was going to walk up to brake time a block up the street and buy ciggretts (sic). Maurice was on the living room couch asleep. I seemed groggy and unstable on my feet and impaired, you asked me if I was alright and you thought the walk up to brake time would do me some good cause it was cold and snowing outside. I said I’m alright. I grabbed my coat and the apartment key which had Maruices [sic] car keys on it and left the apartment and locked the sliding glass door from outside. No gun was in my coat cause you placed it on the back of the kitchen chair when you were cleaning up. About an hour later you started to worry about me and the telephone rang. Maurice woke up and answered the telephone and told yo [sic] I was in jail and that I need you to bond me out of jail with my mental disability money you were keeping for me from my SSI check. Say you told Maurice to tell me what money? Cause you all play with me about my money all the time and I get mad. Maurice told me what money and I asked Maurice why you didn’t have my money (P.S. J.P. NEVER SAID A WORD). Then you told Maurice (sic) to tell me you all were just playing around with me and would sen [sic] the Bondswoman Miss Jerri right down to get me out. After Maurice hung up the telephone you asked Maurice what I was in jail for. Maurice said I took his car and the police stopped it and found Maurices [sic] target pistol in it that Maurice had left under a newspaper on the floor board of the front drivers [sic] side. That I did not know the gun was in the car. (Say Maurice asked you why you let me take his car, I said I was going to walk) It is Maurice’s Target Pistol a 32.[sic] Caliber R.G. Modle (sic) revover (sic), black with a brown handle with tape on it. Make sure you say it was a TARGET PISTOL AND Maurice had it for target shooting only "not for self defense” because I can get my sentence reduced if also I obtained or possessed the firearm or ammunition soley [sic] for lawful sporting purposes or collection. They got me cause the bullets I had in my coat pocket carry the same time as the gun. I'm sending a copy of the police report so you will understand what and why to say (unknown) above. I am writing Maurice and getting him to say the same thing. The attorney may ask you about my mental condition. Tell them I have the same mental impairment as Mahummad [sic] Ali. Brain Syndrome, and I need Adult Supervision. I am not violent. I don’t think clearly and make logical and rantional choices and decisions. I cannot control my behavior that I know is wrongful. I forget simple stuff — use alcohol and drugs. Slow on thinking. Can’t keep up with dates, events, appointments and stuff. Can't shop alone, Ill (sic) buy stuff I already got or don’t need. I get lost in the Mall parking lots stuff like that. Don't pay bills. Loose [sic] keys. I’m too nice I give away stuff I shouldn’t and people easily take advantage of me. Can’t count money properly. My attorney or his investorgator (sic) will be down there to see you and I will have him send you a copy of the police report. I will not be back until this is over. They will be writting [sic] you to court. They wouldn’t let me bring stamps with or your number, just legal papers. I get one stamp a week. Write back. Love, Thanks, Tony