United States v. Bonner
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16156
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bonner was indicted for interference with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and use of a firearm during the crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
- In Oct. 2009 a jury convicted Bonner on both counts after multi-stage defenses and rebuttal evidence; the district court later granted a judgment of acquittal in June 2010.
- The Subway restaurant robbery occurred Oct. 29, 2008; a burgundy Honda Passport and a pink/reddish SUV were observed nearby; two armed assailants with pantyhose over their faces robbed the store.
- Physical evidence included a Yankees hat found near the dumpster, DNA on the hat showing a predominant profile matching Bonner, and Bonner’s wallet and cell phones found in a vehicle linked to the crime scene.
- Eyewitness identifications of the robbers were limited; the only employee identification of Bonner came from circumstantial connections rather than facial descriptions.
- The government argued that DNA, a wallet, phone calls, and other circumstantial connections established Bonner’s identity as the robber; the district court found insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether identity evidence proves Bonner committed the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt | Government argues DNA and circumstantial links identify Bonner as the robber | Bonner asserts lack of direct identity evidence and reliance on unsubstantiated inferences | Insufficient identity evidence; acquittal affirmed |
| Whether DNA evidence establishing predominant profile supports last-wearer inference | DNA predominance supports inference Bonner wore the hat during robbery | DNA cannot determine last wearer; unsupported inference | Rejected; DNA alone cannot sustain identity inference |
| Whether canine tracking and related phone calls create sufficient circumstantial link | Dog tracked to Marathon the gas station; call to Bonner's girlfriend ties him to scene | No reliable scientific basis to connect scent and phone records to Bonner; speculative | Insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236 (4th Cir. 2008) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2007) (heavy burden to sustain conviction; circumstantial evidence allowed)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc standard for sufficient evidence; reasonable jury verdicts)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 250 (Supreme Court, 2009) (forensic testimony requires reliable foundation; confrontational safeguards)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court, 2011) (forensic testing requires specialized knowledge; not simple or certain)
- United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2010) (police expert testimony requires specialized knowledge and foundation)