Bank Robbery Prosecutions In Federal Courts
Bank Robbery Prosecutions in Federal Courts: Overview
Bank robbery is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Federal jurisdiction applies when:
The bank is federally insured (most banks are), or
The robbery affects interstate commerce or federal interests.
Elements of Federal Bank Robbery:
Taking or attempting to take
Property or money
From the possession or custody of a bank, credit union, or savings and loan association
By force, violence, or intimidation
Federal courts are strict with these prosecutions because of the potential harm to the financial system and public safety.
Key Case Law Examples
1. Tison v. United States (1974)
Court: United States Supreme Court
Facts:
Defendants were charged with robbing a federally insured bank. The case centered on what level of force or intimidation is necessary for conviction.
Legal Issues:
Whether mere presence at the scene is sufficient, or whether active participation is required.
Interpretation of “force, violence, or intimidation.”
Ruling:
The Court emphasized that the government must prove the defendant used or threatened force or intimidation to take the money. Passive presence without participation isn’t enough for conviction.
Significance:
Clarified that the “use of force” element requires active engagement.
2. United States v. Bramble (1993)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Facts:
Defendant was charged with armed bank robbery after displaying a firearm during the robbery.
Legal Issues:
Whether brandishing a weapon enhances sentencing under federal law.
The application of sentencing enhancements for firearm use.
Ruling:
The court held that brandishing or possessing a firearm during a bank robbery increases the severity of the offense and leads to enhanced sentencing.
Significance:
Established that even displaying a firearm, without firing it, triggers harsher penalties.
3. United States v. Baker (2016)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Facts:
Baker challenged his conviction arguing that he did not take money by force, but the bank teller voluntarily handed over cash.
Legal Issues:
Whether a bank robbery conviction requires proof of force or intimidation at the moment of taking property.
The role of coercion and intimidation.
Ruling:
The court ruled that if the victim hands over property due to fear induced by threats or intimidation, the force element is satisfied. The defendant’s intimidation caused the voluntary handover.
Significance:
Confirmed that robbery includes intimidation-induced voluntary transfers.
4. United States v. Bailey (2006)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Facts:
Bailey was convicted of bank robbery based on evidence that he planned and executed a robbery with accomplices.
Legal Issues:
Whether conspiracy to commit bank robbery carries the same penalties as the completed crime.
The burden of proof for conspiracy charges.
Ruling:
The court upheld conspiracy convictions, explaining that planning and agreeing to commit robbery, with an overt act toward execution, suffice for conviction, even if the robbery is not completed.
Significance:
Confirmed that conspirators face serious penalties and can be prosecuted independently of the actual robbery.
5. United States v. Ford (2010)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Facts:
Ford argued entrapment, claiming the government induced him to commit bank robbery.
Legal Issues:
The validity of entrapment defenses in bank robbery cases.
Distinguishing between predisposition and government inducement.
Ruling:
The court held that entrapment requires showing the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime and was induced by government agents. Predisposition was shown, so the entrapment defense failed.
Significance:
Clarified the high bar for successful entrapment defenses in bank robbery cases.
Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
Use of Force or Intimidation: Active force or threats causing fear satisfy the element of “force, violence, or intimidation” (Tison, Baker).
Firearm Enhancements: Brandishing or using firearms increases penalties (Bramble).
Conspiracy Liability: Planning or agreeing to commit robbery with overt acts leads to prosecution (Bailey).
Entrapment Defense: Requires proof of government inducement and lack of predisposition (Ford).
Federal Jurisdiction: Applies to federally insured banks and protects interstate commerce interests.
RELATED Blog
0 comments