United States v. John A. Ford
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11382
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Defendant convicted of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and sentenced to the statutory maximum of 240 months, in part due to prior convictions.
- Appeal raises two issues: exclusion of a defense alibi-like witness for failure to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.1(a) and the trial court’s handling of eyewitness identification.
- Robbery occurred in Palatine, Illinois; defendant, a Chicago personal trainer, had a training session about two hours after the robbery.
- Distance from Palatine bank to gym (about 28 miles) would typically allow arrival well within two hours; no weather or accident asserted to excuse lateness.
- The proposed alibi witness would have testified to defendant’s calm, friendly demeanor, arguing psychological impossibility of committing the robbery two hours earlier.
- Medical and investigative context: a dust mask with DNA matched to the defendant; a bank manager identified Ford (the defendant) from a photo array.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 12.1(a) alibi notice was required for the proposed witness | Ford; alibi witness testimony premised on psychological impossibility. | Sykes; witness not true alibi; rule should not apply. | Exclusion sustained; rule applied as alibi evidence. |
| Whether the photo array identification was unduly suggestive and violated due process | Manager identified Ford from array; evidence reliable due to corroborating DNA and description. | Array was highly suggestive; tainted identification. | Identification linked to suggestive array; error deemed harmless beyond reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Florida, 399 F.2d 78 (U.S. 1970) (premised alibi evidence requires pretrial notice)
- Pearson v. United States, 159 F.3d 480 (10th Cir. 1998) (pretrial notice for alibi evidence)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (reliability of eyewitness identification standards)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (reliability standard for eyewitness identifications under due process)
- United States v. Downs, 230 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2000) ( discussive case on eyewitness identification and suggestiveness)
- United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 1999) (sequential vs simultaneous lineups; misidentification risk)
- United States v. Brown, 471 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2006) (sequential lineups reduce misidentification risk)
- United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (robust discussion of eyewitness identification reliability)
- Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129 (1987) (harmless error and forfeiture principles)