U.S. v. Trala

Decision Date26 October 2004
Docket NumberNo. 02-4524.,02-4524.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. John Walter TRALA a/k/a Sonny a/k/a Walter John Trala John Walter Trala, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Gregory M. Sleet, J.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Penny Marshall, (Argued), Office of the Federal Public Defender, Wilmington, DE, for Appellant.

Keith M. Rosen, (Argued), Office of United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE, for the Appellee.

Before ROTH and McKEE, Circuit Judges, and ROSENN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

John Walter Trala appeals his conviction for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. For the reasons below, we will affirm.

I
A. Background of the Robbery

Trala's conviction stems from his participation in the armed robbery of the PNC bank branch in the Eden Square Shopping Center in Bear, Delaware (the "Bank"). However, events began in the spring of 1999 when the Bank's head teller, Melissa Bailey, began stealing money from the Bank's vault to support her husband's drug habit. App. 1248-51. By November 1999, Mrs. Bailey had stolen approximately $100,000. App. 1250.

Around that time, the Bank received $400,000 in cash from the Federal Reserve to cover an increase in customer withdraws that was anticipated as a result of the "Y2K" computer scare. App. 1251-52, 1254. Mrs. Bailey, as head teller, had sole responsibility for these funds, which were kept in a separate safe inside the Bank's vault. App. 1252. The influx of Y2K funds afforded Bailey an opportunity to replace the $100,000 she had stolen from the Bank. However, Bailey knew that any shortfall in the Y2K funds would eventually be discovered because those funds had to be returned to the Federal Reserve on January 19, 2000. App. 1255-56.

Mrs. Bailey's husband, Philip Bailey, operated a concrete business where Trala worked as a concrete finisher. App. 1119. In the fall of 1999, Mrs. Bailey and Trala began discussing the possibility of robbing the Bank to create an explanation for the missing Y2K funds. The robbery would account for any shortfall in the Y2K funds, thereby preventing the detection of Mrs. Bailey's prior embezzlement when those funds were returned to the Federal Reserve. App. 1136-37, 1258-59. Mrs. Bailey informed Trala about the "Y2K" funds, told him where the money was located, and informed him that she would have to be present during the robbery they were planning because she was the only person with the second half of the combination to the vault. App. 1259-60.1

B. The Robbery

The bank was robbed at approximately 8:00 AM on January 14, 2000. App. 1031-33. As planned, Mrs. Bailey was present, as was Bank manager, Brian Warnock. Id. Another Bank teller, Lillian Foley, arrived while the robbery was in progress. App. 1053. After the robber fled, Foley drove to a nearby store and asked someone to call the police. App. 1056-57. When Delaware police arrived; an officer found a red sweatshirt and black knit cap on a sidewalk near the Bank. Those garments matched the Bank employees' descriptions of the garments worn by the robber. App. 1073.2 Warnock and Foley described the robber as 5'6"-5'9", 150-160 pounds,3 and wearing a red hooded sweatshirt. App. 1033, 1054. Warnock also indicated that the perpetrator was wearing a dark stocking cap and sunglasses. See App. 1033. When questioned, Mrs. Bailey denied any involvement in the robbery and indicated that $400,000 had been stolen from the vault. App. 1274-75.

Mr. Bailey was sick at home on the morning of the robbery. App. 1143. He testified at Trala's trial that Trala came into Mr. Bailey's room the morning of the robbery, pulled money out of a brown paper bag, and asked Bailey how much he wanted. App. 1144-45. Bailey further testified that Trala told him that he would put the money in Mr. Bailey's shop. Id.4 Later that day, Trala returned home to Elkton, Maryland and paid his landlord for two weeks' rent. He paid in $100 bills, which the landlord testified was unusual. App. 1104-05. Trala then left Maryland and drove to North Carolina with his girl-friend, Vicky Prince, and her daughter. App. 1776-77.

On February 10, 2000, Mrs. Bailey was interviewed by an FBI agent and confessed her involvement in the Bank robbery, as well as the 1999 thefts. App. 1360-61.

C. Trala's Arrest in North Carolina

On the morning of February 10, 2000, Moorehead City, North Carolina Patrol Officer, Timothy Guthrie, stopped a 1990 Ford Taurus. Trala was driving and Prince was a passenger. App. 1440, 1464-70. When Trala could not produce a driver's license, Officer Guthrie asked him for his name and date of birth. Trala replied that his name was "Natt Albert Allen, Jr." App. 1441. Prince also told Officer Guthrie that Trala's name was "Natt Allen, Jr." App. 1449. In speaking with the Officer, Trala stated that he had over $10,000 in cash in the car, and said it was proceeds from a recent property deal. App. 1444.

When Sergeant Felicia Long arrived on the scene, she spoke to Trala at the "rear of the vehicle" and he repeated what he had just told Officer Guthrie. App.1963-64. Sgt. Long then spoke to Prince "at the front of the vehicle." Prince initially identified herself as "Michele Trala," but later said that her name was actually Vicky Prince. App. 1465, 1470. When asked about the cash, Prince initially stated that the money came from "working and saving." App. 1468. When asked the same question later in the conversation, she stated that Trala "won it at the races in Delaware." App.1970. However, Prince changed her story after police told her that there would be a record of any winnings at the race track. Prince then said that Trala "won the money at the slots." App. 1471.

Prince and Trala were placed under arrest and police eventually searched the car where they found $35,123 in cash. App. 1487-89. Trala was subsequently turned over to federal authorities in Delaware and charged with: (1) bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d), and 2 (Count I); (2) conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count II); and (3) use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count III). App. 36-38.5

D. DNA and Trace Evidence

The sweatshirt and knit cap that police found just outside the Bank were sent to the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C.App. 1498-99. FBI agents also collected hair and saliva samples from Trala and took carpet samples from his motel home. App. 1492-93, 1504-05. These samples were sent to the FBI laboratory for comparison with the samples from the sweatshirt and knit cap. App. 1493-94, 1506.

Forensic examination determined that the hairs taken from the garments exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the hairs taken from Trala and the fibers taken from his carpet. App. 1591-92. The FBI laboratory also compared DNA taken from hairs on the knit cap found near the Bank following the robbery with DNA taken from Trala's saliva sample. The forensic examiner used a method of DNA typing known as "PCR/STR" typing. App. 1630, 1633. The results revealed that the sample taken from the knit cap was mixed, i.e., it contained DNA from more than one person. App. 1639-40. The examiner determined, however, that there was a clear majority contributor to the sample, and that the DNA of the major contributor matched Trala's DNA to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. App. 1640.

Prior to trial, Trala filed a motion in limine challenging the admissibility of the DNA evidence. He argued that the evidence should be excluded because PCR/STR typing, as applied to mixed DNA samples, did not satisfy the standard for scientific reliability under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). After conducting a three-day evidentiary hearing, the district court issued a well reasoned and comprehensive opinion explaining its conclusion that the expert testimony was admissible.

E. Jury Deliberations

The trial began on Monday, November 26, 2001. App. 899. By Friday, November 30, both sides had rested, and the jury began deliberations at approximately 1:00 PM.App.1919. The first day of deliberations ended at 4:30 PM due to a juror's previously scheduled weekend trip. App. 1919, 1931-3. The following Monday, December 3, deliberations did not begin until approximately 1:00 PM because the same juror was late returning from her trip. App.1966. Shortly after 5:00 PM on the second day of deliberations, the court asked the deputy clerk to find out if the jurors wanted to order dinner and continue their deliberations. App.1965. The jury responded with the following question: "The jury wants to know if they can't come to [a] unanimous decision, and this is before they decide about dinner, is it over or will they have to come back?" Id.

The following exchange then took place between the court and defense counsel:

THE COURT:[M]y inclination at this time at 5:05 is to advise the jury that we're prepared to order dinner.

...

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, the difficulty is that [this] is some expression of ... possibly not being able to reach a verdict.

THE COURT:The jury hasn't deliberated long enough to even be close to that point. They didn't commence their deliberations until 1:00 o'clock today. They didn't start their deliberations until 1:00 o'clock on the day that they got the case....

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:Here is my problem, your Honor. If they asked the question and we give no response to it one way or the other, then we put them in a position.

THE COURT: Of ordering dinner and continuing their deliberations.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:But we're not answering their question.

THE COURT:I feel like we're answering their question. If they have a further question to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Boretsky v. Ricci
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • February 29, 2012
    ...as are reasonably required to place the defendant or coconspirator's nontestimonial statements into context"); United States v. Trala, 386 F. 3d 536, 544-45 (3d Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, Trala v. United States, 546 U.S. 1086 (2006) (finding no Confrontation Clause violation wher......
  • Com. v. Pelletier
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • January 15, 2008
    ...hearsay rule. Although the Anderson case preceded Crawford, the same rationale applies after Crawford. See, e.g., United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 544-545 (3d Cir.2004), vacated on other grounds, 546 U.S. 1086, 126 S.Ct. 1078, 163 L.Ed.2d 849 (2006), a case also involving false stateme......
  • United States v. McCluskey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • June 20, 2013
    ...profiling is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community, widely accepted in the U.S. and internationally), aff'd,386 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.2004); Stills v. Dorsey, 7 Fed.Appx. 856, 859 (10th Cir.2001) (unpublished) (concluding N.M. Supreme Court's holding that PCR testing is admissi......
  • Coy v. Renico
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • February 15, 2006
    ...on a sufficiently reliable basis to be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or state analogues. See, e.g., United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 541-42 (3d Cir.2004); United States v. Boswell, 270 F.3d 1200, 1204-05 (8th Cir.2001); United States v. Shea, 159 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir.1998......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...(2d Cir. 2013) (no coercion when Allen charge given after 1 hour of jury deliberation and verdict reached 4 hours later); U.S. v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 543 (3d Cir. 2004) (no coercion when Allen charge given after 7.5 hours of deliberations and jury reached verdict 3 hours later), vacated on......
  • § 36.05 Confrontation and Hearsay
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (2018) Title Chapter 36 Right of Confrontation
    • Invalid date
    ...for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.").[132] 471 U.S. 409 (1985).[133] See United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 545 (3d Cir. 2004) ("[T]he statements were admitted because they were so obviously false. They established that Prince was lying to the police a......
  • § 36.05 CONFRONTATION AND HEARSAY
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (CAP) Title Chapter 36 Right of Confrontation
    • Invalid date
    ...for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.").[123] 471 U.S. 409 (1985).[124] See United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 545 (3d Cir. 2004) ("[T]he statements were admitted because they were so obviously false. They established that Prince was lying to the police a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT