The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the prison sentence imposed on Trina Mae Johnson, who was convicted of severe child abuse offenses. Johnson had argued that the district court judge’s expressions of deep sympathy and empathy toward the young victim during the sentencing hearing violated her due process right to a neutral arbiter. However, the appellate court concluded that the judge’s statements, while emotional, were insufficient to demonstrate the kind of deep-seated bias required to overturn the sentence.
Johnson was sentenced to 216 months (18 years) in federal prison following her guilty plea to charges including child torture, child neglect, child endangerment, and assaulting a minor with a dangerous weapon. These charges stemmed from a horrific period of abuse inflicted upon an 11-year-old foster child, identified as L.D., over fifteen months.
The Horrific Abuse and Plea Negotiations
The facts presented to the court detailed sustained and severe mistreatment of L.D. while under Johnson’s care, beginning in November 2020. The abuse included sleep deprivation, starvation, denial of medical care, physical torture, and psychological torment. By the time L.D. was brought to a youth shelter in April 2022, he had lost 100 pounds, suffered from improperly healed broken bones and stab wounds from knives and scissors, sustained brain injuries, and was left with severe, lasting trauma. Johnson was also found to have encouraged others, including family members, to participate in the abuse and actively concealed the conditions from authorities, including during L.D.’s online schooling.
Johnson pleaded guilty without a formal plea agreement after the government’s offer—a 120-month mandatory minimum sentence—was contingent on her sister, Bobbi Jo Johnson, also pleading guilty. Bobbi Jo refused the deal and proceeded to trial, which prevented Johnson from accepting the original terms.
At sentencing, the government sought a 240-month sentence, citing the severity of the crimes. Johnson asked for a sentence near the originally offered 120 months, citing her own past traumas and post-offense rehabilitation efforts. The district court ultimately imposed 216 months, which was less than the government requested but significantly more than Johnson hoped for.
The Core of the Appeal: Judicial Empathy
The central issue on appeal was the statement Judge Katherine M. Menendez made directly to the victim, L.D., after L.D.’s sister read his victim impact statement. The judge praised L.D. for his extraordinary strength in surviving the ordeal and expressed gratitude that he had landed with a supportive foster family.
The judge stated, in part: “I think you might be the strongest person I have ever come across… I am so, so glad that you did [hold on].” She also noted the compassion L.D. showed others despite his suffering, adding, “And it’s heartbreaking that that didn’t happen for you until now.”
Johnson’s legal team argued that this outpouring of empathy for the victim crossed the line, suggesting the judge had abandoned judicial neutrality and demonstrated prejudice against Johnson. Because Johnson did not object to the judge’s comments or request recusal at the time of sentencing, the Eighth Circuit reviewed the claim under the demanding “plain error” standard.
The Court’s Analysis: Sympathy vs. Bias
The Eighth Circuit panel, led by Judge Loken, acknowledged the high constitutional standard required to prove judicial bias—that the judge displayed a “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”
The court decisively rejected Johnson’s claim. It noted that opinions formed based on facts presented during the proceedings, such as the horrific details of the crime, do not automatically constitute bias unless they rise to that high, impossible-to-overcome antagonism.
The court emphasized that the judge’s comments were directed at a young victim recounting extreme trauma. Such expressions of sympathy, the court explained, do not equate to advocacy for the prosecution or bias against the defendant. In fact, the court pointed to federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3771) which grants victims the right to be heard and treated with respect, suggesting that judicial empathy can further congressional policy goals regarding victim participation.
“This is not a case where the judge ‘shed [her] robe… and… assumed the mantle of the advocate,'” the opinion stated, contrasting the situation with prior case law where judicial advocacy was evident.
Furthermore, the appellate court reviewed the sentencing decision itself. It noted that Judge Menendez explicitly weighed both mitigating factors (Johnson’s prior trauma, acceptance of responsibility via the straight plea, and time served) against the aggravating factors (the duration and severity of the abuse and efforts to conceal it). Crucially, the court imposed a sentence of 216 months, which was *below* the 240 months requested by the government. This demonstrated that the judge was capable of balancing factors and was not simply rubber-stamping the prosecution’s wishes.
The Eighth Circuit concluded that Johnson failed to show that the judge’s sympathy for L.D. improperly influenced the final sentence, affirming the judgment of the district court.