*2
Sаvings
Home Federal
Park branch of
and
LAY,
HENLEY,
Before
HEANEY and
two
Minneapolis
Loan of
weeks before the
Judges.
Circuit
robbery.
pled guilty
August 4
Miles
to the
August
robbery
the same bank
and
LAY,
Judge.
Circuit
Opdahl
that Richard
had told him
testified
Opdahl appeals
Richard
from
Carl
robbery.
how
execute the
Miles
robbery
conviction of bank
in violation of 18
brother, Lyle Opdahl,
Richard’s
robbed the
2113(a)
(d).
U.S.C.
The sole issue on
§
August
acquaintance
4. Another
bank
appeal is whether there was sufficient cor-
additionally
Opdahl’s,
Bynell,
Mark
testi-
evidence,
roborative
in addition to the ad-
Opdahl
fied that
had told him that
defendant,
support
guilty
missions of
robbery of Home Federal in
Louis Park
St.
verdict. We affirm.
constitut-
“pushover.”
was a
This evidence
Opdahl
which
clаims lack
ed
admissions
At approximately
July
2:35 P.M. on
provide sufficient
corroboration in order to
men
two
entered
rear door of the
guilt beyond a reasonable
evidence of his
Louis Park Branch of
St.
Home Federal
doubt.
Savings
Minneаpo-
and Loan Association of
lis. Both
gloves.
were masked and wore
Opdahl’s poten-
When the FBI learned of
One,
slender,
particularly
who was
tall and
July
with the
tial involvement
wore a dark blue ski mask with
Opdahl’s
red trim.
agent
samples
took hair
from
an
He
gun.
was armed with a small hand
were sent to the FBI laborato-
head. These
pulled
other
up
wore
bandana
over his
ski
that had been
ry along with the
mask
carrying
face and a hat. He was
sawed
near the bank. Hair strands
found
weapon.
microscopical-
off shoulder
One of the robbers
taken from
ski mask
samples
took
with the hair
taken
money
ly compared
the cash out of the teller’s
rule,
inception,
at its
Opdahl. Myron Scholberg
of the FBI
extremely
served
limitеd function.
Laboratory testified
he found that
order to convict
serious crimes of vio-
hairs “were
Opdahl’s
microscopical-
Richard
lence,
offenses,
capital
independent
then
ly alike in all identifiable characteristics”
proof
required
that someone had in-
with the
found in the ski
hairs
mask. His
violence,
deed inflicted the
the so-called
*3
the
conclusion was that
two hairs removed
the
corpus delicti. Once
existence of the
mask could have originatеd
the ski
established, however,
guilt
crime was
the
from the defendant.
be
of the accused could
based on his own
does not contest
defendant
that there
otherwise
uncorroborated
confession.
adequate
is
with
to
respect
corroboration
But in
as tax
a crime such
evasion there
robbery
the fact
on
that
committed
injury
which
tangible
no
can be isolat-
July 19,
bank employees,
Three
who
crime,
ed as
As to this
it
corpus
delicti.
occurred,
present
robbery
when the
that the crime
cannot be shown
has been
manager
tellers,
the branch
and two
testi-
identifying
committed without
the ac-
fied about
the details of the
In
crime.
are
cused. Thus we
faced with the choice
addition, the surveillance cameras recorded
applying
either of
the corroboration rule
the
on film. There can be no doubt
according
to this
the
offense
accused
that a crime was committed.
greater protection
even
than the rule af-
Defendant’s contention is that
there is
prose-
fords to a
in a homicide
defendant
cution,
sufficient corroboration that he
finding
was the
. or
.
.
of
the rule
person who committed the
wholly inapplicable
crime. He
because оf the nature
claims
offense,
that
the hair taken from
of
stripping
his head
accused
which
with the
corresponds
guarantee altogether.
hair
to
taken from
We choose
rule,
the ski
enough
apply
mask is not
to
with
guaran-
its broader
сorroborate
tee,
his
to Miles
tangi-
admission
that he
to crimes in which there is
robbed the
no
delicti,
bank.
argument
corpus
Defendant’s
ble
where the corroborative
misses its
implicate
mark.1
evidence
in
must
accused
order to
that а crime has been
show
com-
Supreme
rejected
Court has
a re-
mitted.
quirement
that the
identity
accused’s
must
153-54,
Id. at
at
(emphasis
75 S.Ct.
be
In
corroborated.
Smith v. United
added) (citations omitted).
99 L.Ed.
192 (1954), the Court indirectly
Any
dealt
that may
with
doubt
have remained
the problem. The case
involved a
after
charge
Smith was erased
Sun
income
tax evasion and in that
sense it was United
371 U.S.
83 S.Ct.
unique
crimes,
(1963),
clearly
because unlike
L.Ed.2d 441
which
most
articulat
tax eva-
sion
tangible
exhibits
ed the rule
injury
that corroboration of the ac
which can
be
identity
necessary
cused’s
was not
corpus
isolated as a
in cases
delicti. The Court
physical damage
which
person
confronted with
involved
problem
of wheth-
or property.
er there should be corroboration of the ac-
cused’s identity
type
in this
of crime.
physical
Where the crime involves
dam-
Court stated:
age
person
property,
prosecution
reliable,
general
corroborating
language
Defendant
relies
thus
it while
es-
also
Opper
tablishing independently
necessary
the other
(1954),
support
argu-
99 L.Ed. It
elements of the offense.
is sufficient
if the
ment that corroboration of an admission is
supports
nec-
essential
ad-
facts
essary.
Opper
thе Court stated:
sufficiently
justify
jury
mitted
inference
therefore,
necessary,
plus
require
It
their
truth. Those facts
the other
must,
Government
pendent
to introduce
evidence
the admission
substantial
inde-
besides
course,
guilt beyond
which
evidence
would tend to estab-
to find
be sufficient
lish the trustworthiness
statement.
reasonable doubt.
Thus,
independent
(citation omitted).
evidence serves a dual
Id. at
at
function.
It
tends to make the admission
draw-
participation,
composite
such as
injury
show that
genеrally
must
responsibility
accused
assistance.
ing
which the
confesses
teller’s
made
occur,
person
fact
that some
did in
clear
Supreme
Court has made
For
criminally culpable. A notable ex-
corpus
involving
tangible
cases
that an admission
ample
principle
is the
fact
a crime has
delicti —where the
must be corroborated
tan-
homicide
can be shown without
been committed
gible
suppos-
of the death of
evidence
perpetrator
neеd
identifying the
—“there
(3d
Wigmore,
ed victim.
Evidence
See
link,
.
confes-
be no
outside the
1940),
There
ed.
n. 5.
need
§
sion,
injury
accused
between the
and the
link,
the confes-
such case be
outside
This
having inflicted it.”
who admits
sion,
and the
injury
between
accused
tо the crime of armed
principle’ extends
it.
having
who admits
inflicted
But
robbery,
accordingly
we are
tangible
where the crime involves no
cor-
reject appellant’s contention.
strained to
*4
pus delicti,
have
“the
we
said that
cоrrob-
(footnotes omitted).
at 719
Id.
implicate
orative evidence must
the ac-
to
a crime has
cused in order
show that
its simi-
because of
Johnson
remarkable
U.S., at 154
75[,
been committed.” 348
Opdahl
larity
present
case. Here
the
Finally, wе have
S.Ct. 194 at
said
198.]
corrobora-
there is insufficient
claims that
by
that
uncorroborated admission
the
one
holdup
the
the
tion to link him with
—that
not,
alone,
standing
does
corrobo-
accused
enough.
the
sample is not
In Johnson
hair
rate
United
an unverified confession.
drawing
composite
that the
accused claimed
Calderon,
160, 165 [,
States v.
75
U.S.
enough
but the court held that
was
186, 99 L.Ed.
202.]
identity with-
the robber’s
admission as to
Id. at 489-90 n.
at 418.
was
to al-
any
out
corroboration
sufficient
including
Since
Sun federal courts
guilty
low a
verdict.
this
consistently
court have
followed the
This
same rule
court has articulated the
rule
that corroborative evidence
the ac-
States,
(8th
that a worn the tall during robbery, robber slender HENLEY, Judge, concurring. Circuit samples microscopically hair tained similar opinion of the majority is based on in all identifiable charаcteristics de- proposition that whereas a confession hair. fendant’s corpus related to the delicti or fact of the Massey, 594 In United F.2d 676 States commission of a crime physi which involves 1979), this court found matched person cal dаmage to or property must be samples probative hair to be of substantial corroborated, there need in such a case be evidence value concluded that of hair link, confession, outside between the samplеs microscopically samples similar to injury person having who admits hair was the “linchpin” defendant’s inflicted it. While it must be conceded that uphold which enabled the court to the con- along this court1 appellate with other case, Similarly, viction. I believe *5 courts,2 following Supreme dicta,3 has Court hair samples, evidence of tended to exclude the identity of the ac evidence, along sidered with the other cused requirement, from the corroboration sufficient corroborate defendant’s admis- this exclusion has been and I am criticized4 as to sions his connection with the crime. far persuaded that it is How sound. Thus, join affirming I the conviction of ever, I concur the result reached Opdahl. Richard mаjority because I am convinced that evi dence corroborating defendant’s admissions
of his connection with the bank
sufficient jury to warrant a inference of the
truth of the admissions. v. Opper United
States, 84, 93, 158, 348 U.S. 75 99 S.Ct. (1954).
L.Ed. 101 government established that
bank wearing robber the ski mask was a
tall and slender Caucasian dark eyes jurors brown oppor- hair. The had
tunity to throughout observe the defendant Stabler, 345, Guam, 543, 1. United v. (9th States 490 F.2d 349-50 325 F.2d Governmеnt 546 (8th 1974); States, 1963). Cir. Fisher v. United 324 Cir. 775, (8th 1963). F.2d 779 Cir. States, 471, 3. Sun v. 371 United See, Johnson, g., e. United States v. 191 U.S. 407, 15, n. 83 9 489-90 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 441 App.D.C. 193, 196, 716, (D.C. 589 F.2d 719 Cir. States, 147, (1973); Smith v. United 1978); 1136, Begay, States 441 F.2d 154, 194, (1954). 99 L.Ed. (10th 1971); Rodriquez Cir. v. United (9th 1969); 407 F.2d Cir. Hicks See, g., Developments e. the La w —Confes U.S.App.D.C. v. United 215 n. sions, (1966); 79 Harv.L.Rev. 1082-83 1967); 382 F.2d 163 n. 6 Cir. Note, Corpus Proof of Delicti Aliunde the Braverman, United States v. 376 F.2d Confession, 103 Defendant’s U.Pa.L.Rev. (2d 1967); Caster v. United (1955). 676-77 1963). F.2d But Palacios see