U.S. v. Peterson
Decision Date | 19 August 1975 |
Docket Number | Nos. 73-2086-73-2091 and 73-2523,s. 73-2086-73-2091 and 73-2523 |
Citation | 524 F.2d 167 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Stanley Bernard PETERSON, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Eric Sylvester SMITH, Appellant (two cases). UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Linda LaVern SMITH, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Paul James COATES, Jr., Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. D'Titinius W. FRAZIER, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lester IRBY, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Gary A. Reese, Charlottesville, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant in Nos. 73-2523 and 73-2087.
Charles Bruce Baird, Vienna, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant in No. 73-2086.
C. Jeffers Schmidt, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Andrew W. Wood, Richmond Va. (Court-appointed counsel) and Wood and Street on brief), for appellant in No. 73-2090.
Dexter S. Odin, Fairfax, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant in No. 73-2091.
Donald S. Lilly, Fairfax, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), on brief for appellant in No. 73-2088.
Barry R. Poretz, Alexandria, Va. (Court-appointed counsel), on brief for appellant in No. 73-2089.
J. Frederick Sinclair, Asst. U. S. Atty. (David H. Hopkins, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee in Nos. 73-2523, 73-2086-73-2091.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
The appellants appeal their convictions for conspiracy to commit bank robbery 1 and for bank robbery. 2 We find the appeal on the part of all appellants without merit and affirm.
On the morning of February 23, 1973 a branch of the Alexandria National Bank was robbed at gunpoint. Six persons four males and two females staged a carefully planned and executed robbery. One of the men and one of the women entered the bank and approached the teller counter where teller Mary Guerth was waiting on a bank customer. The male robber, brandishing a pistol, pushed aside the customer, ordered Guerth and the bank's other occupants not to move, and backed toward the bank entrance. Two other men, pulling ski-masks over their faces, entered the bank. One of them leaped over the teller counter and forced teller Guerth to the floor. The second proceeded to the manager's area demanding access to the vault. The woman, following the example of the masked robber, vaulted the teller counter and ordered teller Menette LaFew to the floor. As these three rifled cash from the teller drawers and vault, the fourth robber maintained his vigil at the bank entrance, barking instructions to bank employees and customers.
Meanwhile, outside the bank, a woman driver of a black-over-gold, 1970-model Chrysler, abandoned her car, thus blocking access to the bank's drive-in window, and patrolled the area outside the bank to prevent any interruption of her accomplices by the arrival of new customers. She was joined in this endeavor by a sixth robber, a man dressed in a security guard uniform and carrying a shotgun, who had emerged from a late model, blue Pontiac parked across the street from the bank. One customer, arriving while the robbery was in progress, was forced by the sixth robber to lie prone in the back seat of his vehicle.
After taking money from the tellers' cages and the vault, the four "inside men" joined the two accomplices outside the bank and, together, rushed across the parking lot to the blue Pontiac parked opposite the bank. Bridget Irby, a customer in the bank at the time, observed their escape and twice shouted the license number of the getaway car as it sped away.
After the robbery, an Alexandria police officer, on routine patrol, overheard the police broadcast of the robbery and a description of the getaway car and its license number. Shortly thereafter he spied the getaway car in an alley near appellant Peterson's residence. His investigation revealed that the vehicle had been stolen in the District of Columbia. The owner's license tags were visible on the floor in the rear of the car. The tags on the vehicle, matching the license number of the getaway car, belonged to the appellant Linda Smith. Additional law enforcement officers were immediately summoned to the scene and a house-to-house inquiry of the neighborhood begun. One of the houses visited was the residence of Annie Pearl Peterson, mother of appellant Stanley Peterson. When the officers knocked at the Peterson door, Nina Butler responded and admitted them. As the officers entered they encountered Linda Smith in the living room. Although both Butler and Smith admitted not knowing whose house they were in, both claimed to be alone and that "they were visiting with some other friends." The officers asked if it was all right for them to "look around" and upon Butler's consent, they proceeded to do so. One of the officers observed Paul Coates and Eric Smith in an upstairs bedroom lying on a bed fully clothed. After summoning the other police and FBI agents in the neighborhood, Coates and Smith were brought downstairs. All four occupants of the house were separately interviewed. During these interviews, several members of the Peterson family who lived nearby came to the house. After determining that the house belonged to Mrs. Peterson, the police requested of Mrs. Peterson's daughter consent for a search of the premises. The daughter informed the police that Mrs. Peterson was the only person with authority to consent to the search and that she had been summoned and would arrive momentarily. When Mrs. Peterson arrived, she was unable to identify any of the persons the police had found occupying her home. Mrs. Peterson was advised of her right to withhold consent to search but, according to the officers, she was "pleased to allow us to search * * *, she worked for the Government, she did not know what these people were doing here, she was glad to cooperate." She did request that the officers not search her own room because, as she said, "(I)t has a padlock on it and nobody has been in there." The officers readily agreed. Mrs. Peterson then signed a written consent form authorizing a search of the remainder of the house. A search of the bedroom where Coates and Smith were found revealed a loaded .12 gauge Savage shotgun, later identified at trial as being similar to the one used by the robber wearing the security guard uniform; a large, wide-brimmed gray hat, identified as being similar to the hat worn by the robber who stood by the bank entrance; and a twenty dollar bill of the bank's "bait money." In several garbage pails located in the back yard of the premises, the police recovered a wig similar to the one worn by the woman inside the bank, several striped pillow cases, Alexandria National Bank money bags, two pairs of gloves, $163.12 in change wrapped in the bank's coin wrappers, and a security guard uniform similar to the one worn by the robber patrolling the parking area.
At trial, the Government offered both direct and circumstantial evidence to delineate the roles played by each defendant in the robbery and attendant conspiracy. On the day before the robbery, Eric Smith and Janet Awkard, 3 posing as potential customers were identified as persons who had visited the branch bank. Janet Awkard made inquiry as to opening an account while Eric Smith sat in the front of the bank, waiting for her. They left without transacting any bank business. There was testimony that later that evening, Eric Smith, Awkard, Irby, Coates, Linda Smith and Nina Butler assembled at Eric Smith's apartment and reviewed a diagram. 4
At approximately 6 a. m. on the morning of the robbery, Frazier, wearing a security guard uniform, Eric Smith and Nina Butler left Eric Smith's apartment in Washington, D. C. to go to Stanley Peterson's home in Alexandria in Eric Smith's yellow Buick. According to the prosecution witness, they were met there by Linda Smith, Irby, Coates and Awkard who had driven to Alexandria from the District of Columbia in two other cars later identified as the blue Pontiac getaway car and the gold Chrysler, abandoned at the bank's drive-in window. All seven, wearing gloves, carrying two pistols and one shotgun, a pillow case and ski masks, were admitted to the Peterson residence by Stanley Peterson. 5 The group remained in the Peterson home until approximately 9 a. m., when Eric and Linda Smith, Coates, Irby, Frazier and Awkard left in the blue Pontiac and the gold Chrysler. Stanley Peterson left shortly thereafter to be seen in other parts of town and thus, according to the Government's testimony, to establish his alibi. 6
It is undisputed that the two automobiles used in the robbery had been stolen shortly before the robbery in the District of Columbia. The dark blue Pontiac used as the getaway car belonged to Richard Johnson, who positively identified Lester Irby as one of the two thieves accosting him and stealing his car. The Chrysler, abandoned at the bank, had been stolen the night before the robbery from the Reverend Randery J. Dockery. Dockery identified Coates and Linda Smith as the two who had stolen his car and wallet. His identifications were bolstered by Butler's testimony that Smith and Coates had left Eric Smith's apartment after the discussion of the diagram, and returned a short time later displaying a wallet and boasting that they had stolen it and a car from "some reverend." Dockery also identified the red coat worn by Linda Smith that evening.
Eye witnesses to the bank robbery made several positive identifications of the participants. Two witnesses identified Eric Smith as the man who first entered the bank and stood at the bank entrance during the robbery. Janet Awkard was identified as his female companion. Frazier was identified by the customer forced into the back seat of his car as the man carrying the shotgun and wearing the security guard uniform. Although not directly identified, Linda Smith's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Sullivan
... ... Block, 590 F.2d 535, 539-40 (4th Cir. 1978); United States v. Isom, 588 F.2d 858, 861 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167, 180 n.20 (4th Cir. 1975). Having been made aware of the suspicious circumstances and the determination of the airfreight supervisor ... ...
-
U.S. v. Beckford
... ... Peterson, 524 F.2d 167, 175 (4th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1088, 96 S.Ct. 881, 47 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976); United States v. Harris, 458 F.2d 670, 679 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Manbeck
... ... The essence of the crime of conspiracy is an agreement to engage in a criminal act. United States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167, 174 (4th Cir.1975) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1088, 96 S.Ct. 881, 47 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976); see also Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, ... 20 Officer Canady testified during the suppression hearing that: ... We asked him where his truck was parked, and he told us where he had his truck parked, which was not where we had observed the truck. We asked him when he had loaded out of Charleston, and he told us a ... ...
-
Smith v. State
... ... at 361, 88 S.Ct. at 516. Other courts have followed this test. See, e. g., United States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 1975) Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1088, 96 S.Ct. 881, 47 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976); United States v. Hitchcock, 467 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir ... Even if he did harbor such an expectation, we are not prepared to say on the record before us that it is one that society would recognize as reasonable and constitutionally protected ... JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID ... ...
-
Defense Counsel, Please Rise': A Comparative Analysis of Trial In Absentia
...Such Absence , 19 A.L.R. 697 (2006); Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Brown, 507 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1975); United States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 1975); United States v. Pastor, 557 F.2d 930 (2d Cir. 1977); Commonwealth v. Hill, 723 A.2d 255 (Pa. Supr. Ct. 1999). 16 Chris Jenks, Not......
-
5.3 Warrantless Searches
...Ritter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 732, 173 S.E.2d 799 (1970); see also Rees v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 850, 127 S.E.2d 406 (1962).[252] 524 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 1975).[253] 590 F.2d 535 (4th Cir. 1978).[254] 275 Va. 123, 654 S.E.2d 910 (2008).[255] Goodman v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 374, 558 S.......