512 F. App'x 154
3d Cir.2013Background
- Muhammad and Peterson were convicted after a five-day trial of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence stemming from a Somerset, NJ bank robbery and high-speed chase.
- Bystanders observed the robbery; GPS bait bills were used and recovered during the escape; weapons and the security guard’s gun were taken.
- Police pursuit through a residential area ended in a gunfight and arrests of all four robbers.
- Bank surveillance footage and physical evidence from getaway vehicles tied the defendants to the crime; multiple witnesses testified at trial.
- Jury convictions were followed by guideline-based sentencing: Muhammad 225 months plus a 120-month consecutive term; Peterson 562 months plus an 81-month revocation term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause: admission of DNA-testimony expert without personal testing | Muhammad/Peterson argue Nicklow’s DNA testimony violated confrontation rights | Muhammad/Peterson contend lab technicians should have testified | Harmless error; evidence overwhelming and cumulative |
| Admission of Miller’s surveillance testimony under Rule 701/803 | Miller’s lay testimony about video images was improper expert inference | Miller’s testimony was helpful and based on perception | No abuse of discretion; admissible lay testimony |
| GPS tracking data and Walsh’s testimony as lay opinion | Exhibits and testimony were improperly admitted | Testimony was cumulative and harmless in light of other evidence | Harmless error; not reversible |
| Victims’ impact testimony to prove intimidation under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) | Evidence of victims’ fear relevant to intimidation | Potentially prejudicial and irrelevant | Court acted within discretion; testimony probative of objective intimidation |
| Admission of radio-dispatch hearsay and related statements | Dispatch statements were hearsay | Statements explained context; not hearsay; not plain error | Not hearsay; no plain error; admissible background context |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lore, 430 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2005) (harmless-confrontation analysis factors for testimonial evidence)
- United States v. Jimenez, 513 F.3d 62 (3d Cir. 2008) (harmless error in Confrontation Clause circumstances)
- United States v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (harmless error factors in confrontation analysis)
- United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159 (2010) (plain error review and four-part test for non-raised errors)
- United States v. Price, 458 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2006) (use of background testimony by officers under Sallins)
- United States v. Frazier, 469 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2006) (prior consistent statements admissibility under Rule 801(d)(1)(B))
- United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893 (3d Cir. 1991) (consistency of prior statements with trial testimony)
- United States v. Cross, 308 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2002) (considerations on evidence impact balancing under Rule 403)