Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-3797 U.S. v. Gordon

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 16, 2011//

09-3797 U.S. v. Gordon

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 16, 2011//

Listen to this article

Bank Robbery
Sufficiency of the evidence; intimidation

The evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for bank robbery, even though one of the tellers was a co-conspirator.  “[E]ven if we accept Gordon’s argument that direct contact between robber and teller is necessary, he overlooks Miller’s contact with Jones, an accomplice and codefendant who was working in tandem with Mitchell, along with Gordon and Carter. We may consider whether the words and conduct of accomplices, working together, give rise to intimidation, see United States v. Jones, 932 F.2d 624, 625 (7th Cir. 1991), and several aspects of Miller’s testimony about her interaction with Jones during the robbery convince us that there was sufficient evidence of intimidation in this case. First, Miller said that Jones seemed afraid—shaking, breathing quickly—when she told Miller that she was being robbed, and it would be reasonable for Miller to experience fear upon seeing her colleague’s apparent distress. Miller testified that she did in fact feel fear after Jones showed her the demand note—‘I was afraid. I felt, you know, it was definitely a high pressure moment, and my concern was we needed to get [the robber] out’—and her fear is probative evidence of intimidation. See Burnley, 533 F.3d at 903; United States v. Hill, 187 F.3d 698, 702 (7th Cir. 1999). Moreover, a demand note alone may contain an implicit threat that rises to the level of intimidation, see Clark, 227 F.3d at 775; United States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363, 367 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gilmore, 282 F.3d 398, 402 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v. Hopkins, 703 F.2d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir. 1983), and the threat in this case seemed altogether real and substantial for Miller, who testified that she thought the robber might be watching her in the drive-through area because the note specifically requested the money that was there.”

Affirmed.

09-3797 U.S. v. Gordon

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Reinhard, J., Per Curiam.

Full Text

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