United States v. Corbin
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43239, 709 F. Supp. 2d 156, 2010 WL 1740686 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) requires the government to prove that the defendant's substantial step toward the commission of the crime involved actual "force and violence, or intimidation."
Facts:
- Joseph Corbin's mother called 911 to report that her son was on his way to rob a Bank of America branch.
- Corbin had written a note on an envelope stating, '[t]his is a ro[bbery] act ver[y] care[ful] no d[ye] ba[g],' and was also carrying a bandana.
- As Corbin walked toward the bank, a uniformed police officer, Jason Cahill, was standing on the sidewalk in front of the bank, next to his marked police vehicle.
- Corbin crossed the street and began walking toward the bank's wheelchair ramp.
- Officer Cahill intervened and arrested Corbin several steps away from the ramp entrance, before Corbin had entered the bank or displayed the note or bandana.
- Upon his arrest, Corbin stated he had argued with his mother, had initially intended to rob the bank, but changed his mind en route.
- The note and bandana were found folded in Corbin's pocket during a search at the police station.
Procedural Posture:
- A Grand Jury charged Defendant Joseph Corbin by indictment with attempted robbery under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a).
- The case was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
- Corbin opted for a bench trial, where the judge acts as the fact-finder instead of a jury.
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 conviction for attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) require the government to prove the defendant used actual 'force and violence, or intimidation' as part of the attempt?
Opinions:
Majority - William E. Smith, District Judge
Yes. A conviction for attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) requires proof of actual force, violence, or intimidation during the attempt itself. The court adopted the Seventh Circuit's textual analysis in United States v. Thornton, reasoning that the statutory phrase 'by force and violence, or by intimidation' modifies both 'takes' and 'attempts to take.' Therefore, the element of force or intimidation is not just part of the completed offense but must also be present in the substantial step constituting the attempt. The court rejected the Second Circuit's more policy-driven approach in United States v. Jackson, which it viewed as improperly reading the force element out of the statute for attempt charges. Here, because Corbin's note and bandana remained concealed in his pocket and he made no threatening gesture, the government failed to prove he used intimidation. Furthermore, even if force were not a required element, the court found Corbin's actions did not amount to a 'substantial step' beyond mere preparation, especially given the ambiguity of walking towards a bank with a visible police officer present, which casts doubt on whether his criminal intent coincided with his actions.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a stringent interpretation of the federal attempted bank robbery statute at the district court level, creating a persuasive authority that aligns with the Seventh Circuit against the Second Circuit. By requiring proof of actual force or intimidation as part of the attempt itself, the ruling heightens the evidentiary burden on prosecutors. This may prevent law enforcement from intervening and charging individuals under this specific statute until a suspect makes an overt, threatening act, rather than simply taking preparatory steps near the target location. The decision emphasizes strict statutory construction over broader policy goals of crime prevention, potentially forcing prosecutors to use other state or federal statutes with different elements for similar fact patterns.
