Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DISTRICT OF OREGON
Defendant.
Case 6:14-cr-00482-MC Document 300 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 11
Minor #3 moved into Daniel Johnson’s orphanage when he was about seven years old.
Within a month of his arrival, Mr. Johnson began molesting him. Over the course of the next
few years, Mr. Johnson sexually abusedMinor #3 countless times. He tried to force Minor #3 to
perform oral sex on him by pushingMinor #3's head down, pulledMinor #3's hair, and anally raped
Minor #3 —the pain of whichMinor #3 recounted at trial. For the abuse, Mr. Johnson sometimes gave
Minor #3 cookies or small sums of money. More importantly, submitting to Mr. Johnson’s
molestations—two or three times a week for years—both ensured thatMinor #3could remain at Mr.
Minor #3, like his older brother Minor #2, had left his family and
escape intractable poverty. They had done so on Mr. Johnson’s promise of a better life at the
orphanage. What they found on their arrival, however, was something far different: Minor #3 and
Minor #2 , who was thirteen years old, quickly became two of Mr. Johnson’s favorite victims and,
over the course of the next few years, Mr. Johnson raped and molested them at will.
Minor #3 and Minor #2 were not alone. As became clear at trial, Mr. Johnson’s creation of a
Cambodian orphanage positioned him to rape some of the world’s most vulnerable children.
Children who he could abuse with impunity because they depended on him for their survival,
for their food and shelter. And because their only hope for an education and a decent life was
to stay in Mr. Johnson’s good graces—by remaining silent while he preyed upon them.
So, for years, prey Mr. Johnson did. Though the full breadth of his crimes is unknown, it
is clear that his appetite for children is insatiable: Ten boys testified at trial about Mr. Johnson’s
often-successful efforts to rape or abuse them. Their stories hewed to a similar path, including
their reasons for being at the orphanage, the control that Mr. Johnson exerted over them, and, in
many instances, the details of Mr. Johnson’s repeated and systematic sexual abuse of them and
their friends.
The full details of these children’s abuse need not be recounted here—the hopelessness
of their predicament and the magnitude of their suffering is, to anyone present for their
testimony, unforgettable. Nor does one need to travel far down the long list of Mr. Johnson’s
offenses before realizing that no term of incarceration can fully account for what he did to those
boys. The facts of this case are plain: Mr. Johnson is, in the fullest sense of the word, a
predator. He is wholly unmoved by the pain of his child-victims and there is no reason to
believe that Mr. Johnson would—or even could—stop himself from sexually abusing children if
released. As such, justice cannot be done, the public cannot be protected, and Mr. Johnson’s
predatory behavior toward vulnerable, young children cannot be controlled by any sentence
Accordingly, the United States echoes U.S. Probation’s recommendation and asks this
At trial, the Court witnessed the victims painfully recount Mr. Johnson’s abuse. Many
were understated, most were ashamed, some found it hard to talk about. All were credible.
arrival at the orphanage. Mr. Johnson had recruited Minor #2 from a rural Cambodian province on
the promise of a better life. But Minor #2 soon learned that Mr. Johnson’s help came at a terrible
price. Minor #2 was forced to serve as a sexual plaything for Mr. Johnson, who abused him at will
from Minor #2's arrival to shortly before Mr. Johnson’s arrest. Minor #2's efforts to stop Mr. Johnson’s
abuse were futile. As he put it, “How could I win?” Compounding Minor #2's suffering was the
knowledge that Mr. Johnson was also raping Minor #2's younger brother,Minor #3
In that regard, Minor #7 faced similar torment. After rebuffing Mr. Johnson’s
attempts to molest him three separate times, Minor #7 left the orphanage. He did so even
alone.
Redacted Photo
recounted, Mr. Johnson tried to put his hand down Minor #8's pants to
pulling Mr. Johnson’s hand out of his pants, but, as he later told the Redacted Photo
were almost too painful to speak of. But Minor #6's demeanor and short
Redacted Photo how he desperately tried—but failed—to stop Mr. Johnson from
anally raping him and that, after each rape, Mr. Johnson ordered
abuse by taking a “selfie” of him raping Minor #5 and then showing Minor #5 the image, which
Minor #4 was also a victim of Mr. Johnson’s repeated rapes. Minor #4 , who loved Mr.
Johnson like a father, testified about the rapes and recalled his futile efforts
to twist away from Mr. Johnson during painful anal sex. Minor #4 also
Redacted Photo recounted Mr. Johnson’s attempts to entice and silence him, and how Minor #4
Mr. Johnson sexually abused Minor #3 shortly after his arrival at the
orphanage. Words fail to capture the impact of Minor #3's heartbreaking trial
testimony on the horrors of Mr. Johnson’s abuse—including the account of Mr. Johnson’s
attempt to anally rape tiny Minor #3. But even the transcript—which contains Minor #3's testimony
about being scared to contact police because he thought he would get in trouble—lays bare both
And those are just the victims who testified at trial. There are also, in all likelihood,
many others, including those who disclosed abuse to the government but either recanted or did
not come to the U.S. for trial, and also those who were never interviewed. The boy who came
out of Mr. Johnson’s room on the morning of his arrest, apparently having spent the night there,
but who was never identified or interviewed. Children at other centers in Cambodia, Vietnam,
Given Mr. Johnson’s systematic and repeated sexual abuse of the victims the United
States learned about, interviewed, and managed to bring over from Cambodia for trial, it is
tragically likely that more victims are out there. Still, the abuse of the testifying victims alone—
when considered alongside Mr. Johnson’s other actions and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors—more
calculations accurately reflect the egregiousness of Mr. Johnson’s crimes, easily reaching the
highest offense level and recommending a life sentence. Their recommendation reflects, among
other things, the number and ages of Mr. Johnson’s victims, the nature of his abuse, and the fact
that Mr. Johnson abused these extraordinarily vulnerable children for years without remorse or
The United States agrees with Probation’s guidelines calculations with two exceptions.
First, Probation increased the offense level for Count 8 by an additional 2 levels under USSG
§3A1.1(b)(1) based on the offense involving a large number of vulnerable victims. See PSR ¶ 95.
Because Count 8 is specific to victims under the age of 12—in this case Minor #3—and the other
victims are accounted for in the calculations for Counts 1 through 7, the United States believes
that the adjustment under USSG §3A1.1(b)(1) should not apply to Count 8, resulting in an
Second, in calculating the multiple count adjustment, the Probation Officer did not
group any counts, resulting in 3 units being added to the highest adjusted offense level. Section
3D1.2 governs when closely related counts are grouped, including the following two
circumstances:
(a) When counts involve the same victim and the same act or transaction.
...
(c) When one of the counts embodies conduct that is treated as a specific offense
characteristic in, or other adjustment to, the guideline applicable to another of
the counts.
USSG §3D1.2(a), (c). The guidelines are not clear cut on this issue. There is an argument that
Counts 3 and 8 should be grouped because they involve the same victim—Minor #3—and his under
12 status is treated as a specific offense characteristic in the guideline applied to Count 3, 1 but
there is also an argument that, because there were multiple incidents of Mr. Johnson sexually
abusingMinor #3, treating these counts separately would not be double counting. However, the
application notes state that “[a]mbiguities should be resolved in accordance with the purpose of
this section . . . i.e. to identify and group ‘counts involving substantially the same harm.’” USSG
§3D1.2, note 2.
the issue in future sentencings—the United States errs on the side of caution and therefore takes
the position that Counts 3 and 8 should group, which reduces the number of units from three to
two, and results in a combined adjusted offense level of 55. The United States takes these
conservative positions on the guidelines in light of the fact that Mr. Johnson’s total offense level
remains well above a 43 regardless and thus the recommended term remains life imprisonment.
1This appears to be the nature of Mr. Johnson’s objections to Paragraphs 55, 57, 85, and 92 of the
PSR.
III. Mr. Johnson’s Unrelenting Sexual Abuse of Multiple Boys and His Future Risk to
Children Merit a Life Sentence
Operating under the guise of a benevolent missionary, Mr. Johnson sought out some of
the world’s most vulnerable children and created an orphanage where, after luring them away
from their families, he could brainwash, abuse, and rape them at will. As a result, these earnest,
desperate children were forced to choose between being molested or returning to a level of
abject poverty unimaginable in the United States. Complicating their decision was the sincere
gratitude they felt for Mr. Johnson, who positioned himself as their sole source of food, shelter,
That Mr. Johnson found himself in such a position was no accident. His years-long
and—based on his recent attempt to curry favor with inmates by fabricating an FBI report
pattern of predatory and deceitful behavior is unrelenting and devoid of any sense that Mr.
Johnson has had a second’s remorse for the profound and unspeakable suffering he has caused.
This complete lack of empathy, when combined with Mr. Johnson’s history of serial
child sexual abuse and his refusal to accept responsibility for his actions, leave little doubt that
he is, at heart, an unrepentant predator, who poses an almost unimaginable danger to children.
This danger is exacerbated by the fact that Mr. Johnson is also a savvy and skilled con artist,
who displays no sense of shame and blames others rather than accept responsibility for his
crimes. Because he cannot acknowledge his own responsibility—or empathize with his victims’
suffering—he will not be rehabilitated and he has shown no desire to change. Indeed, Mr.
Johnson is only here because, after being arrested and charged in Oregon for sexually abusing
position where he had unfettered access to vulnerable children, who he could control,
intimidate, and abuse. Neither shame, nor guilt, nor morality moved Mr. Johnson to stop
raping children before. And it will not now: Only Mr. Johnson’s continued incarceration will
stop him. Mr. Johnson either cannot or will not stop himself.
For that reason, Mr. Johnson should never be allowed to set foot outside of prison. As
his history makes clear, Mr. Johnson’s next step as a free man will likely be the first step toward
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the United States asks the Court to impose a life sentence. In doing so, the
total 210 years) to each other and a statutory maximum sentence of life as to Count 8 to run
concurrent to the 210 years. Given the number of victims and difficulty in ascertaining losses in
this case, the United States requests that the Court set a date for determining restitution that is
Respectfully submitted,
BILLY J. WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
s/ Jeffrey S. Sweet
JEFFREY S. SWEET
Assistant United States Attorney
s/ Ravi Sinha
RAVI SINHA
Assistant United States Attorney
s/ Lauren E. Britsch
LAUREN E. BRITSCH
Trial Attorney
Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section
Criminal Division, U.S. Dep’t of Justice