Prologue — Johnson v. United States

7

rei]

LUKE McKISSACK

Attorney at Law

Suite 521 ee

6430 Sunset Bivd.

Hollywood, Ca. 90028

-[213] 466 7331...

Attorney for Petitioner

SUBJECT INDEX

Table of Authorities Cited....... iij

EE BR PE EP oe oe A

Opinions BELOW. seeeeeeeeceveceeee B

Grounds on which the jurisdiction

of this couse is invoked..ccccece

Questions presented for Review...

Statement of the Case....ccccccce

-> fF A. wD

Statement of the FactsS.......eeeee

Reasons for granting the writ

and amplifying the same.........+ 17

I

THIS COURT SHOULD REMAND THE CASE

TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PETITION FOR

REHEARING ON THE MERITS......--. 17

II

DEFENDANT JOHNSON MET THE BURDEN OF

PRESENTING THE DEFENSE OF ENTRAPMENT

THROUGE HIS TESTIMONY. AND THE

GOVERNMENT DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF

eet

SHOWING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTRAPPED....... 20.

III |

THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT'S RELIANCE

UPON THE SUPREME COURT'S REVERSAL OF

UNITED STATES v. RUSSELL, 459 F.2d

671 (1972) AMOUNTS TO AN EX POST

FACTO ADJUDICATION..........eeee02. 32

IV

IF JOHNSON WAS CONVICTED ON SUBSTAN-

TIALLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE

CASE IS NOT PROVED UNLESS THE JURY

COULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THE

EVIDENCE FAILS TO EXCLUDE EVERY

REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS BUT THAT OF

WORN 65 btsekectatedisesecietides- “$A

PAO a Pit ebdckasedbsewsacc. 36

SE BLO BLES er Se

PRIME Os oo gts ipmmnmnr eta a

ee

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Barnes v. United States

341 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1965)

Cohen v. United States

363 F.2d 321 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 385 U.S. 957,

87 S&S. Ct. 395, 17 L.Ed.24

303 (1966):

Lufty v. United States

198 F.2d 760, Jo2

(9th Cir. 1952)

McMillan v. United States

399 F.2d 478 (1966)

Notaro v. United States

9th Cir. 1969) 363 U.S. 169

People v. Carmichael

80 Ill. App.2d 293 225 N.E.

2d 458 (1967)

People v. Jones

Ty iit. App.2d 55, 219 N.E.

2d 12 (1966)

Sherman'v. United States

356 U.S. 369, 373-375,

78 S. Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.

2d 848 (1958)

State v. Boccelli

105 Ariz. 495, 467 P.2da

740 (1970)Cf£.

Lili

' PAGE

34

33

27

33

26

21

21

22,30

21

oO errr

Vick v. United States

216 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1954) 34

United States v. Bueno

F. (1971) 21,24 -

United States v. Chisum

° (9th Cir. 1971) 21

United States v. Dillet

F. Supp. 980 (S.D. N.Y. 1966) 21

United States v. Groessel

440 F.2d 662 (Sth Cir. 1971) 24,25

United States v. Martinez

United States v. Russell

United States v. Silva

F. Supp 557

(S.D. N.Y. 1959) 21