United States v. James Garner

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
915 F.3d 167 (2019)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Evidence of preparatory acts, such as surveilling a target and assembling tools for a crime, is sufficient to constitute a 'substantial step' for a conviction of attempt, even if not all necessary actions for the crime's commission have been completed. A conspiracy charge requires an agreement between at least two individuals, neither of whom is a government agent acting in that capacity.

Facts:

On February 6, 2015, James Garner approached Saber Saber at their mosque and asked him to be a getaway driver for a planned robbery of Apex Bank.
Saber, who was a confidential informant for the FBI, immediately contacted his FBI handler and began recording his conversations with Garner.
Saber agreed to participate in the FBI's investigation of Garner.
On February 9, Garner instructed Saber to conduct surveillance on the Apex Bank.
After the surveillance was complete, Saber met with Garner and a third individual, Ruben Marshall, to discuss and finalize the robbery plan.
Over the next few days, Garner and Saber had several more recorded phone calls outlining the details of the robbery.
On February 12, the day before the planned robbery, Saber picked up Garner in his car.
Garner entered Saber's car with a backpack containing ski masks, a loaded gun, gloves, two-way radios, and ammunition.

Procedural Posture:

A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted James Garner and his co-defendant, Ruben Marshall.
The case proceeded to a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The jury convicted Garner on all counts (conspiracy, attempted bank robbery, and a firearm charge) but acquitted Marshall.
The District Court sentenced Garner to 101 months' imprisonment.
Garner (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Is the evidence of surveilling a target bank, planning the crime, and possessing a backpack with a loaded gun, ski masks, and gloves sufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy and attempted bank robbery beyond a reasonable doubt?

Opinions:

Majority - Ambro, Circuit Judge

Yes, the evidence was sufficient. A conviction for attempt requires proof of intent and a 'substantial step' toward the commission of the crime, and a defendant need not perform the 'last act necessary' to be found guilty. Garner's actions of directing surveillance on the bank and gathering the tools for the robbery (gun, masks, etc.) constituted numerous and substantial steps. Regarding the conspiracy, the charge was between Garner and Marshall, not Garner and the government informant, Saber. Conspiring solely with a government informant would not create criminal liability, but the evidence of Garner's agreement and planning with Marshall was sufficient for a rational jury to find a unity of purpose and an agreement to work together, thus satisfying the elements of conspiracy.

Analysis:

This case reaffirms the 'substantial step' test for the crime of attempt, clarifying that significant preparatory actions are legally sufficient for a conviction even if the plan is not fully complete. The court also formally adopts the well-established rule from other circuits that a defendant cannot be guilty of conspiracy if the only other party to the alleged agreement is a government agent. The decision underscores the high deference appellate courts give to jury verdicts in sufficiency of the evidence challenges, refusing to overturn a conviction merely because an alternative interpretation of the facts is possible.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. James Garner (2019)

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