Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed Jonathan Johnson’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) barred reliance on a juror’s post-verdict email describing her mental health, jury deliberations, and concerns about the verdict, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. The court also rejected Johnson’s facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) under plain-error review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) barred consideration of Juror 8's post-verdict email and therefore supported denial of Johnson's request for an evidentiary hearing concerning the juror's mental competence.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing regarding Juror 8's alleged mental-health conditions and conduct during deliberations.
- Whether Johnson's facial challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) constituted plain error after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
- Whether application of § 922(g)(1) to Johnson was unconstitutional as applied and constituted plain error.
Holdings
- Rule 606(b) barred the email because it described statements and incidents during deliberations, the effect of mental conditions on Juror 8's vote, and her mental processes concerning the verdict; none of the rule's exceptions applied.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing concerning Juror 8's mental health or competence.
- Johnson's facial challenge to § 922(g)(1) failed under plain-error review because it was not obvious that Bruen disturbed the D.C. Circuit's precedent upholding the statute.
- Johnson's as-applied challenge failed because his violent predicate felonies were not minor or regulatory, and applying § 922(g)(1) to him was not plain error.
Key quotations
“Rule 606(b) excludes this information as testimony about “the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote” and about “any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict.”” (13)
“The District Court was thus well within its “especially broad discretion” to deny Appellant’s request for a hearing on Juror 8’s mental health.” (16)
“Medina held, based on a historical analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification, that felons are not protected by the Second Amendment.” (18)
Factual background
Johnson had prior convictions for armed robbery and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. While on supervised release in 2020, police observed him near a parked car and recovered a loaded Glock .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun with a 22-round magazine and an illegal device enabling automatic fire. After his conviction for being a felon in possession, Juror 8 reported post-verdict that chronic anxiety and depression, along with pressure from other jurors, affected her participation in deliberations.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Johnson on July 26, 2023. After the verdict, Juror 8 emailed the district court describing anxiety, depression, panic attacks, pressure during deliberations, and doubts about the fairness of the verdict. Johnson requested an evidentiary hearing to investigate the juror's mental competence and later appealed the denial of that request, as well as raising facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) that had not been timely presented below. The district court denied the hearing request, entered judgment, and sentenced Johnson to 57 months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.