Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2409 U.S. v. Cravens

By: dmc-admin//December 31, 2001//

01-2409 U.S. v. Cravens

By: dmc-admin//December 31, 2001//

Listen to this article

“First, under Section 5K2.13(2), the district court concluded that Cravens’ offenses involved a serious threat of violence. Cravens approached the teller at the Manufacturers Bank in Lansing, Illinois, and passed her a demand note which read ‘give me your 100s and 50s now.’ He also said, ‘don’t be stupid,’ and, placing his hands in his pockets, stared directly at her. The teller believed that Cravens was reaching for a gun. However, when the teller showed Cravens her empty drawer, Cravens took the note back and left the bank. At the sentencing hearing, Cravens informed the judge that he did not remember placing his hand in his pocket and telling the teller ‘don’t be stupid.’ Under these circumstances, the district court concluded that there was a serious threat of violence. Even if Cravens was unarmed and never actually caused any physical violence, it concluded that the facts and circumstances indicated that he used intimidation and some threatening behavior to accomplish his crimes.

“Next, under Section 5K2.13(3), the district court concluded that Cravens’ extensive criminal history (at least thirteen bank robberies) indicated a need to incarcerate him to protect the public. Cravens argued that, in light of his mental health history, there is no need to incarcerate him in order to protect the public. As we noted, however, this determination is one properly made irrespective of the defendant’s mental health condition.

Accordingly, the district court “concluded that Cravens could not qualify for a reduction under Section 5K2.13 and therefore he did not have a plausible basis for obtaining an expert witness to assist him in that motion… [T]he district court was not required to consider expert testimony in its analysis of the second and third factors of Section 5K2.13 and therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Cravens’ motion for the appointment of an expert.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Conlon, J., Manion, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests