Carmen Johnson v. United States

The Government seized $515,967.64 from Ms. Johnson’s bank account. In its affidavit, the Government claimed those funds were “substitute assets.” When Ms. Johnson moved for the release of those funds to defend her criminal case, the Government changed its story. It argued the repeated use of the phrase “substitute assets” was a drafting error and claimed the funds were seized pursuant to a “separate investigation.” The Government never charged Ms. Johnson pursuant to that separate investigation. But it kept her money and applied it to a restitution judgment entered in her criminal case. After her conviction, Ms. Johnson filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis to challenge the seizure of her funds. She claimed the forfeiture was illegal and the restitution award was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel. She relied on cases from the Second and Seventh Circuit that held a coram nobis petition, and not a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, was the appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge a non-custodial aspect of a criminal judgment. The district court and the Fourth Circuit disagreed and held that Ms. Johnson could not obtain coram nobis relief because she remained “in custody” while on supervised release. QUESTION PRESENTED: May an individual challenge non-custodial aspects of a criminal judgment through a petition for writ of error coram nobis?