Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing

Jesse Surratt

502Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing

January 9, 2018

JSurrattJr- Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing-502-Unit 8_Assignment.doc

I.  Statement of Facts

United States v. Canter 871 F.2d 1089

Mr. Canter is charged with one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). On January 5th of this year, Mr. Canter robbed the First State Bank. Upon entering the bank, he approached a teller and pulled a crudely carved wooden replica of a 9 mm Beretta handgun. The teller was so frightened that he only glanced at the gun, but later testified he believed it to be real. The teller at the next window looked at the replica and stated then that she was confident at the time that it was a fake gun. No one else noticed whether the wooden gun was real.

II. Issue

Whether within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), a toy gun can be regarded as a "dangerous weapon" when committing a bank robbery?

III. Analysis/application

1. Introduction

Our client, Mr. Eldon Canter is charged with one count of armed robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d).

2. Rule of law

Statutory Law: 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d).

18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) provides that (a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, or obtains or attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association.

(d) Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person using a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both.

3. Case interpreting the rule of law

The case law that governs our client's case is United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989).

a. Name of case/citation - United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989).

b. Summary of facts showing case is on point

On June 19, 1987, Martinez-Jimenez and De La Torre entered a bank in Bellflower, California. While De La Torre robbed a customer and two bank tellers Martinez-Jimenez was in the lobby forcing bank customers to lie face down on the floor. Martinez-Jimenez was holding what appeared to be a handgun. The three eyewitnesses testified that the object was a dark revolver about eight or nine inches in length. They testified that it caused them to fear for their safety and the safety of the other people in the bank. De La Torre testified at the trial that neither he nor Martinez-Jimenez had operable firearms when they entered the bank and that Martinez-Jimenez had purchased a toy gun at a department store a few hours before the robbery.

c. Rule of law or legal principle presented in the case that applies to the client’s facts

The rule of law that governs our clients’ case is United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989). By comparison, a bank robber’s use of a replica or simulated weapon violates § 2113(d) even if the bank robber does not assault anyone with the fake weapon. Just his possession of the weapon, while he is committing the crime, is evidence of his capacity to commit an assault. The possession of the toy gun assisted the appellant in the crime by increasing its likelihood of success. The appellant testified in court that the toy gun made him feel secure suggesting that he may not have robbed the bank without it.  

d. Application of rule/principle from the case to the client’s facts

18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) focuses on the harms created, not the manner of creating the harm and is not concerned with the way that a robber displays a simulated or replica handgun. Court evidence shows that the appellant’s possession of the toy gun created fear and anxiety in the victims. The appellant argued that the testimony of the eyewitness bank tellers be thrown out because it was based on their mistaken assessment of the apparent threat. This argument fails because, during a robbery, when a person is face-to-face with what looks like a dangerous weapon, they cannot be expected to maintain a high level of accurate perception.