United States v. James McNeal
818 F.3d 141
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendants James McNeal and Alphonso Stoddard were tried for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), three substantive armed bank robberies (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d)), and three § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) counts for brandishing firearms during those robberies; a third co-defendant, Link, pleaded but did not testify.
- FBI used a tracking warrant to install a GPS device on a 2004 Ford Taurus registered to McNeal’s mother after an informant linked the vehicle and McNeal to several robberies; surveillance led to arrests following the New Year’s Eve robbery.
- At arrest agents recovered a loaded Glock from Link and a trash bag with stolen cash; a later search of McNeal’s residence (search warrant) produced a locked box containing a silver revolver and cash.
- At trial eyewitnesses testified that robbers displayed handguns in the charged robberies; Stoddard made inculpatory statements to agents and to a jailmate; McNeal stipulated he lived at the Hyattsville residence.
- Jury convicted Stoddard on all counts and McNeal on the conspiracy count and the New Year’s Eve robbery and brandishing counts; McNeal’s other robbery counts were dismissed after a hung jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 924(c) brandishing counts | Gov: Eyewitness lay testimony that a gun was displayed suffices absent evidence the gun was fake | McNeal & Stoddard: Prosecution failed to prove the handguns were functional firearms (no expert) | Affirmed — eyewitness testimony that a gun was displayed is sufficient absent indicia the gun was a fake (Jones). |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 371 conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery | Gov: Surveillance, casing activity, participation in the New Year’s Eve robbery, and co-defendant admissions support that McNeal knew firearms would be used | McNeal: Government failed to prove he knew the conspiracy’s objective was armed (as opposed to unarmed) bank robbery | Affirmed — jury rationally could find McNeal knew a firearm would be used; alternatively conviction as conspiracy to commit bank robbery would sustain punishment. |
| Denial of motions to suppress (tracking and search warrants) | Gov: Warrants supported by informant tip corroborated by surveillance and vehicle registration tie to McNeal; probable cause existed | McNeal: Tracking affidavit did not adequately link him to the Taurus; search affidavit did not sufficiently connect him to the residence | Affirmed — magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; corroboration and observed movements supported warrants. |
| Admissibility of revolver and cash from residence | Gov: McNeal stipulated residence ownership and bedroom contents tied to him; evidence properly admitted | McNeal: Insufficient foundation tying seized items to him | Affirmed — McNeal’s stipulation and bedroom context provided adequate foundation. |
| Whether armed bank robbery (§ 2113(d)) is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3) | Gov: § 2113(a) (by force and violence or intimidation) involves use or threatened use of physical force and thus qualifies under the force clause; § 2113(d) includes § 2113(a) elements so it qualifies | McNeal & Stoddard: Argued § 2113(a) "intimidation" may not require use/threat of violent physical force post-Johnson/Leocal/Torres-Miguel; residual clause vagueness argument (Johnson) | Affirmed — § 2113(a)’s "force and violence" or "intimidation" elements satisfy the § 924(c)(3) force clause (intimidation = threatened use of violent physical force); thus no plain error to sustain § 924(c) brandishing convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 907 F.2d 456 (4th Cir. 1990) (lay eyewitness testimony that a gun was used suffices to prove a firearm absent evidence the weapon was a fake)
- United States v. Beyle, 782 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of de novo review for legal questions)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) ("physical force" in ACCA means violent force capable of causing physical injury)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (interpretation of "use" of physical force requires more than negligent or accidental conduct)
- United States v. Carter, 530 U.S. 255 (2000) (§ 2113(a) bank robbery requires general intent/knowledge as to the actus reus, including intimidation)
- United States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64 (4th Cir. 1995) (state robbery statute that required violence or intimidation satisfies the ACCA force clause)
- United States v. Torres-Miguel, 701 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing use of force from causation of injury when assessing force-clause applicability)