Walter O. Johnson v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed Walter O. Johnson’s convictions for the murder of a law enforcement officer and related offenses. The court held that Philadelphia police had an articulable suspicion that Johnson might be armed and dangerous before frisking him during a traffic stop involving a vehicle in “try and locate” status, and therefore properly seized the firearm. The court also upheld denial of a new trial based on an alleged witness recantation, concluding that the recantation was not credible.

Holdings

1. The frisk was constitutionally justified because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had articulable reason to suspect that Johnson might be armed and pose a danger to their safety before the frisk occurred.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson's motion for a new trial because it reasonably determined that Means had not credibly recanted his trial testimony.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Philadelphia police had reasonable, articulable suspicion that Johnson might be armed and dangerous before frisking him during the traffic stop.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Johnson's motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered recantation evidence from government witness Ethan Means.

Disposition

affirmed