# Prologue — Johnson v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385607_1138%3A0

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Prologue
- **Published:** January 1, 1973
- **Citation:** 414 U.S. 1112

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385607_1138%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.