United States v. Jabron Thomas, 701 F. App'x 414

On July 14, 2015, a man robbed a Huntington Bank in Redford, MI, displaying a black-and-silver handgun and fleeing in a dark four-door sedan. Surveillance video and witness descriptions were available.
Four days later a viewer identified Jabron Thomas on Facebook; police located a public Facebook profile listing Rite-Touch Auto Sales and went to that business, where they arrested Thomas inside the office.
Police recovered a silver handgun from an unlocked desk drawer in the Rite-Touch office and later found shorts at Thomas’s home similar to those in the surveillance video; a Buick registered to Thomas the day after the robbery was also located.
A jury convicted Thomas of armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113), brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (§ 924(c)), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 922(g)(1)).
On appeal the parties agreed there was insufficient evidence to support the felon-in-possession conviction because the weapon was found in a shared workplace area four days after the robbery.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the robbery and § 924(c) convictions but reversed the § 922(g)(1) conviction and remanded for resentencing (the felon-in-possession conviction had increased Thomas’s Guidelines level by two).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession (§ 922(g)(1))	Presence in office and furtive entry support constructive possession	Constructive possession can be inferred from location, behavior, and similarity of gun to robbery weapon	Reversed: evidence insufficient; mere presence and brief flight into a shared office do not prove dominion/control
Authentication of Facebook/Instagram photos	Photos lack foundation because officers did not verify who created the profiles	Officers testified they located and downloaded publicly available profile photos; authentication requires only enough proof for a reasonable juror	Affirmed: social-media photos were properly authenticated for identification purposes
Use of parole officer to identify defendant	Parole-officer ID unfairly suggests Thomas’s parole status and prejudices jury	Parties agreed officer could identify Thomas; prosecutor did not disclose parole status at trial	Affirmed: no plain error; testimony did not establish parole status or create unfair prejudice
Juror experiment (taking shoe into bathroom) and motion for new trial	Jurors’ outside experiment constituted external influence requiring new trial	Jurors simply examined admitted evidence at counsel’s invitation; jurors may handle evidence to compare it with exhibits	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; jurors may examine evidence and holding up shoe to light was permissible

United States v. Grubbs, 506 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2007) (defining actual and constructive possession standards)
United States v. Birmley, 529 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976) (mere presence near a firearm is insufficient to prove possession)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
United States v. Hobbs, 403 F.2d 977 (6th Cir. 1968) (photograph authentication principles)
United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147 (6th Cir. 1997) (authentication requires enough proof for a reasonable juror)
Doan v. Brigano, 237 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2001) (outside experiments by jurors can be improper external influences)
United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983) (jurors may handle and examine admitted evidence)