United States v. Lowen
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15669
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bank robbery at First National Bank of Walker; robber described with aviator sunglasses, camouflage jacket, white shoes, and black cap; Lowen identified as robber by tipster Eischens based on image; Lowen owned a dark blue Chevrolet Tahoe matching the getaway vehicle; officers located items at Lowen's residence and vehicle (cap, gloves, sunglasses, sneakers) and obtained a search warrant after Miranda warnings; subsequent searches recovered camouflage clothing photo, a similar duffel bag, a $1,100 money order, and an air pistol instruction manual; Lowen acknowledged financial distress and eventual questioning without prior Miranda warnings but was handed warnings during later questioning; evidence linked Lowen to pre-robbery purchases (air pistol) and cash spent near the robbery; the jury convicted Lowen of one count of bank robbery and he appeals suppression, sufficiency, and identification testimony issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lowen was in custody requiring Miranda warnings | Lowen argues he was in custody during questioning | State contends interrogation was non-custodial | No custody; statements admissible |
| Whether the evidence supports a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt | Eischens identification and corroborating items establish guilt | Discrepancies in clothing and lack of weapon/cash at home undermine link | Sufficient evidence; reasonable jury could find guilt |
| Whether Sergeant Aukes's identification testimony was properly admitted | Aukes's lay identification testimony was admissible | Admission was improper under Rule 701 | Harmless error; cumulative independent identification evidence supported verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011) (custody determination for Miranda is objective; consider surrounding circumstances)
- Griffin v. United States, 922 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1990) (non-exclusive factors for custody analysis; not rigid rule)
- Czichray v. United States, 378 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2004) (custody evaluation not ritualistic; totality-of-circumstances)
- LeBrun v. United States, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc; custody inquiry toward formal arrest standard)
- Flores-Sandoval v. United States, 474 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2007) (Miranda warnings and custody considerations not dispositive on their own)
- Van v. United States, 543 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2008) (lie to police as evidence supporting jury verdict)
- Melecio-Rodriguez v. United States, 231 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2000) (harmful-error analysis for cumulative evidence)
- Tenerelli v. United States, 614 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary mistakes)