Attempt; sufficiency of the evidence
Where the defendants knew that the ransom money they sought in a kidnapping would come from a bank, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for attempted bank robbery.
“Agent Crocker testified that Callion admitted in his post-arrest statement to knowing that, at one point, Zachary told Dorenzo the demand was for her to empty the bank’s entire vault. That testimony demonstrates that Callion knew that the money was to be stolen from the bank. Even apart from Agent Crocker’s testimony, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Callion knew the plan was to steal money from the bank. Specifically, Gibbs testified that Callion knew money was coming “from the bank,” and knew that it was not coming from a safety deposit box. Viewing that testimony in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could also have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Callion understood that the scheme involved robbing the bank. Moreover, even if Callion thought that Dorenzo would withdraw the funds from Zachary’s account, a jury could find the requisite intent because, under our case law, where a ‘robber forces [a] bank’s customer to withdraw . . . money, the customer becomes the unwilling agent of the robber, and the bank is robbed.’ United States v. McCarter, 406 F.3d 460, 463 (7th Cir. 2005) overruled on other grounds by United States v. Parker, 508 F.3d 434, 440- 41 (7th Cir. 2007).”
Affirmed in part and Vacated in part.
10-1308, 10-1328, 10-1660 & 10-1753 U.S. v. Durham
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Coar, J., Flaum, J.