United States v. William Hagler
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24015
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Aug. 15, 2000: attempted bank robbery in Woodburn, Indiana; two armed men fled before police arrived.
- Getaway car identified as George Townsend’s white Pontiac; gloves, masks, jacket recovered from car; Townsend positively identified car.
- Hair and mask DNA recovered; initial hair DNA partial; mask DNA mixed profile with multiple potential contributors and no single match.
- 2001–2007: partial DNA profile generated dozens of hits but no identification; profile later removed in 2007.
- 2008: upgraded DNA testing yields complete Hagler profile; Hagler later matched in automobile; major contributor in mask profile matches Hagler’s brother Shawn.
- 2010: Hagler and Shawn indicted; Hagler tried first; Hagler convicted of one count of attempted bank robbery; later post-trial inconclusive DNA tests discussed but no new trial granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3297 tolls the statute of limitations. | Hagler; multiple hits meant many implicants, triggering tolling. | Gov’t; only a single identified person implicates tolling. | Clock starts when a single identified person is implicated; indictment timely. |
| Excessive pre-indictment delay prejudicing Hagler. | Delay caused degradation and faded memories, prejudicing defense. | Delay did not cause substantial prejudice; memories faded but trial credible. | No abuse of discretion; no actual and substantial prejudice shown. |
| Sufficiency of proof that the bank was federally protected. | FDIC certificate plus bank employee testimony establish insurance. | Certificate alone insufficient; employee testimony inadequate. | Evidence sufficient to prove FDIC insured status at the time. |
| Whether new, inconclusive DNA testing warranted a new trial. | Inconclusive tests could create reasonable doubt. | Tests did not undermine strong fingerprint/DNA evidence. | No likelihood of acquittal; district court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) (limitations serve to prevent obscured facts by time)
- Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 469 (2006) (statutory interpretation and limits analysis guidance)
- Daniels v. United States, 387 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2004) (limit purposes of limitations on prosecutions)
- Hills v. United States, 618 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of § 3297 application)
- Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) (actual prejudice standard in pre-indictment-delay)
- McMutuary, 217 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2000) (pre-indictment delay analysis and balancing)
- Higgans, 507 F.2d 808 (7th Cir. 1974) (bank FDIC insurance proof guidance)
- Shively, 715 F.2d 260 (7th Cir. 1983) (FDIC certificate alone insufficient without employee testimony)