USA v. Johnson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
) 	MODIFY NO CONTACT ORDER
vs. 	)
)
Scott Howard Johnson, 	) 	Case No. 1:23-cr-092
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendants is charged in a Superseding Indictment with: six counts of sexual exploitation
of a child; one count of attempted sexual exploitation of a child; and one count of possession of
images depicting the sexual exploitation of children. (Doc. No. 24). Following a detention hearing
on May 25, 2023, the court issued an order detaining him pending further proceedings and
prohibiting him from having any direct or indirect contact with any witnesses or alleged victims.
(Doc. No. 18).
On July 21, 2023, Defendant filed a motion requesting the court to modify its May 25, 2023,
order to permit him to have contact with his wife, a witness in this matter. (Doc. No. 26). He asserts
that he needs to have contact with his wife, his primary source of support, to discuss their family
business and other family matters unrelated to the instant case. He requests further hearing on this
matter. (Doc. No. 27).
On July 26, 2023, the United States filed a response in opposition to Defendant's motion
(Doc. No. 28). It asserts that Defendant has defied the court's no contact order by: (1) contacting
his wife to, among other things, request that she communicate with the alleged victim; and (2)
attempting to indirectly contact the alleged victim via communications with his son.
1
Case 1:23-cr-00092-DMT Document 29 Filed 07/27/23 Page 1 of 2

The United States assertions are very troubling. Given the nature of the offenses charged,
Defendant's history of domestic violence, and Defendant's alleged defiance of this court's no contact
order, the court is not inclined to lift or otherwise modify the no contact order. The court appreciates
that Defendant may rely on his wife for support and would like her assistance in setting up a
spending account. However, the court is confident that the latter can be accomplished with counsel's
assistance as counsel is not prohibited from having contact with witnesses as is necessary in
furtherance of Defendant's legal defense. Defendant's motion and request for further hearing (Doc.
Nos. 26 and 27) are therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day July, 2023.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:23-cr-00092-DMT Document 29 Filed 07/27/23 Page 2 of 2