United States v. Burnley

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
533 F.3d 901 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the federal bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), the element of "intimidation" is satisfied by conduct and words calculated to create the impression that resistance would be met with force, which can be established even without an explicit threat or the presence of a weapon.

Facts:

On April 25, 2006, Walter Burnley, a 33-year-old man, entered an Associated Bank branch wearing a baseball cap pulled low, with safety goggles over sunglasses.
Burnley approached the lone teller, leaned toward her, and said, “Fill the bag and do not give me the dye pack.”
On May 12, 2006, Burnley's accomplice, Lisa Harding, a woman of slight build, entered an AnchorBank branch at his direction.
Harding ordered a teller to “put all of your money in this bag but no dye pack,” repeating the demand more forcefully when the teller seemed confused.
On May 16, 2006, Burnley and Harding entered a First National Bank branch together. Burnley, wearing a painter's mask, stood near the door.
Harding approached a teller and said, “I need you to do me a favor, I need you to put all the money in the bag,” and later confirmed there was no dye pack.

Procedural Posture:

Walter Burnley was tried before a jury in federal district court.
The jury returned a verdict convicting Burnley on four counts of bank robbery.
The district court sentenced Burnley to 262 months in prison.
Burnley appealed his convictions on three of the four counts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing the government failed to prove intimidation.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a defendant's conduct of demanding money from a bank teller, coupled with instructions not to include a dye pack, constitute "intimidation" under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) even in the absence of an explicit threat or weapon?

Opinions:

Majority - Wood, Circuit Judge

Yes. A defendant's conduct and words can constitute intimidation under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) if they would place a reasonable person in fear, even without an explicit threat. The legal standard for intimidation is objective: whether an ordinary person would reasonably feel threatened under the circumstances. The court found that demanding money from a bank teller is not a polite request that can be ignored, and the specific instruction to omit dye packs implies a criminal context where non-compliance could lead to force. The defendant's actions and words were calculated to create an impression that resistance would be met with force, thus satisfying the statute's requirement for intimidation. The teller's subjective feeling of fear is probative but not dispositive; the key is what a reasonable person would have felt.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms a broad interpretation of the "intimidation" element in the federal bank robbery statute. It solidifies the principle that the context of the interaction, rather than just the explicit words used, is paramount in determining whether intimidation occurred. By focusing on an objective, reasonable-person standard, the court makes it difficult for defendants to argue that a lack of overt violence or threats negates the intimidation element. This precedent strengthens the prosecution's ability to secure convictions in so-called "note-job" or non-violent robberies where the threat is implied rather than stated, thereby lowering the evidentiary bar for what constitutes intimidation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Burnley (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"