United States v. Lonnie Whatley, 719 F.3d 1206

Whatley robbed four Atlanta-area banks (2003–2006) and attempted a fifth (2007).
Whatley was convicted on four armed-robbery counts and four related firearms counts; the indictment did not charge the 2007 attempted robbery, which he pled guilty to elsewhere.
At trial, 17 bank employees identified Whatley; some witnesses differed in prior statements, but many identifications were in-court.
The government introduced extensive financial records and miscellaneous items from Whatley’s home to support a nexus to the robberies and to bolster a “modus operandi” narrative.
Exhibits 1 and 4—news article about the 2007 arrest and a page from Whatley’s criminal-history report—were admitted/considered by jurors, prompting a post-deliberations inquiry and a motion for new trial.
The district court sentenced Whatley to 300 months for some counts and 18 months consecutive for others, and ordered restitution; the court later denied a new-trial motion based on juror exposure to extrinsic evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Identification evidence admissibility after Perry	U.S. argues Perry abrogated Code/Douglas; in-court identifications not precluded	Whatley contends identifications were tainted by suggestive circumstances	Admissible; Perry abrogated Code/Douglas; no due-process violation
Admission of 2007 attempted-robbery evidence under Rule 404(b)	U.S. asserts MO evidence shows common modus operandi	Whatley contends similarities are insufficient and prejudicial	Not an abuse of discretion; evidence admissible to prove identity and MO
Juror exposure to extrinsic evidence and new trial	Exhibit 4 could prejudice; district court properly weighed harmlessness	Exposure created prejudice; merits new trial	Harmless error; district court did not abuse its discretion
Abduction enhancement in sentencing	U.S. argues abduction applies when employees moved within bank	Whatley argues no abduction because no relocation outside bank	Abduction enhancement reversed; only physical restraint enhancement applies

Code v. Montgomery, 725 F.2d 1316 (11th Cir. 1984) (identifications may be admissible where police did not arrange suggestive procedures)
Douglas, 489 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2007) (reliability factors for eyewitness identifications in-court)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (reliability despite suggestive circumstances (Biggers framework))
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (two-step test for admissibility of eyewitness identifications)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (confirming Biggers reliability analysis)
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967) (early take on pretrial identifications)
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896) (Allen charge procedure guidance)
Dortch, 696 F.3d 1104 (11th Cir. 2012) (analyzes harmlessness of extrinsic evidence exposure)
Tobin, 676 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2012) (presumption of prejudice and burden-shifting framework)
Lail, 846 F.2d 1299 (11th Cir. 1988) (modi operandi and admissibility of prior bank robberies)
Myers, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977) (case-by-case MO analysis for Rule 404(b))
Reynos, 680 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2012) (abduction-like considerations within single building contexts)
Osborne, 514 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2008) (within-building aberrant behavior and enhancements)
Johnson, 619 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2010) (abduction-like movements within banks)
Eubanks, 593 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2010) (within-building movement and abduction debate)