472 F. App'x 108
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Dupree appeals his August 9, 2010 conviction and sentence for armed bank robbery, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, and conspiracy; DNA linked sunglasses to Ronald Samuels; Dupree, Ronald, Latricia Samuels, and Mayra Rodriguez were involved in the M&T Bank robbery on April 15, 2004; Ronald, Latricia, and Rodriguez pled guilty; Dupree stood trial and was convicted on all counts with accomplice testimony relied upon by the jury; district court sentenced Dupree as a Career Offender and granted a variance based on Ronald’s sentence.
- Dupree was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (bank robbery), § 924(c) (firearm), and § 371 (conspiracy); FBI Agent Craft testified about Ronald’s confession implicating Dupree; Latricia and Rodriguez testified for the government; Ronald did not testify.
- The government established the bank’s FDIC insured status through bank employee testimony; the jury could reasonably conclude FDIC insurance at the time of the robbery.
- Dupree challenged the use of accomplice testimony and Bruton-related hearsay; the court found accomplice testimony sufficient; no plain error from non-testifying accomplice statement; sentencing procedures found proper under Buford and related guidelines.
- The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Government evidence supports all elements | Dupree argues inconsistencies in accomplice testimony undermine conviction | Evidence sufficient to sustain verdict |
| Admission of non-testifying accomplice statement | Ronald’s confession corroborative through other witness consistency | Bruton/Confrontation Clause error potentially violated | No plain error; Bruton issue does not undermine fairness under record |
| Accomplice testimony alone | Uncorroborated accomplice testimony can support conviction | Credibility issues with Latricia/ Rodriguez raise concerns | Reasonable jury could rely on accomplice testimony |
| Career offender determination / Buford consolidation | Offenses are not 'related' given intervening arrests | Convictions should be functionally consolidated under Buford | Dupree properly classified as career offender; sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rosario, 118 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 1997) (Standard for sufficiency of evidence and reasonable jury view)
- United States v. DeLarosa, 450 F.2d 1057 (3d Cir. 1971) (Accomplice testimony can sustain conviction without corroboration)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause limits testimonial hearsay)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (Co-defendant confession implicating another requires cross-examination when joint trial)
- Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (U.S. 2001) (Functional consolidation for career-offender calculations)
- United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159 (U.S. 2010) (Plain-error standard for non-constitutional errors)
- United States v. Harper, 314 F. App’x 478 (3d Cir. 2008) (Evidence of bank insured status sufficient to prove FDIC-insured bank)