John Lohden, Jr., a confidential informant, and his associate Dayton Peterson engaged in a series of violent crimes over several years, including kidnapping suspects for ransom, stealing firearms from drug dealers while posing as law enforcement, and trafficking large quantities of narcotics. In one incident, Lohden kidnapped Anthony Bishop, blindfolded him, and demanded ransom. In another, Lohden and Peterson, wearing body armor and claiming to have a search warrant, raided Jose Manuel Avila-Galaviz's home, stealing firearms, watches, and drugs before kidnapping Avila. They were charged with multiple counts including kidnapping, robbery, impersonating an officer, and drug trafficking. After a joint trial, a jury convicted both defendants on all charges. The district court sentenced Lohden to 39 years and Peterson to 30 years in prison. Both defendants appealed, challenging the admission of evidence, the sufficiency of the proof, the joint trial, and their sentences.
The Sixth Circuit addressed several distinct legal issues. First, regarding the admissibility of text messages found in Lohden's impounded car, the court applied Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Although the government had not provided specific pretrial notice for these particular messages, the court found 'good cause' to admit them because the defendants' opening statements disavowed any knowing participation in the crimes. The court reasoned that by claiming they were 'naïve' or 'hoodwinked,' the defendants opened the door to evidence showing their actual knowledge and intent, as the messages revealed plans for a future robbery. Second, the court rejected Lohden's Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of the car, finding he had abandoned the vehicle during a high-speed chase and thus had no legitimate expectation of privacy. Third, the court upheld the district court's finding that Lohden was competent to be sentenced, crediting the government's psychiatric evaluation over the defense's claims of faking symptoms. Fourth, the court dismissed Lohden's due process claim regarding the plea deal, noting there is no constitutional right to a plea bargain and the government was free to make the offer contingent on both defendants pleading guilty. Finally, the court addressed Peterson's challenges, ruling that the joint trial was proper because the crimes were logically interrelated and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, as a rational jury could infer guilt from witness testimony, physical evidence, and text messages. The court also found Peterson's sentence reasonable, noting the district court had already considered his difficult childhood and age.
The decision affirms the convictions and sentences of Peterson and Lohden, closing the appellate phase of their case. It reinforces the principle that defendants who claim ignorance in their opening statements may open the door to evidence of their prior bad acts or knowledge, even if pretrial notice was imperfect. The ruling also clarifies that a contingent plea offer requiring co-defendants to plead together does not violate due process. The case is remanded to the district court for any remaining administrative proceedings, though the judgment of conviction stands.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download