United States v. Carr

Decision Date04 August 2014
Docket Number12–50089,12–50144,12–50169.,Nos. 12–50082,12–50135,s. 12–50082
Citation761 F.3d 1068
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Edwin CARR, aka Edwin Luther Carr, Jr., Defendant–Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Mark Anthony Franklin, Defendant–Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Damien Lamar Anderson, Defendant–Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Mark Anthony Franklin, Defendant–Appellee. United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Damien Lamar Anderson, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Rasha Gerges (argued) and Christopher K. Pelham, Assistant United States Attorneys; Robert E. Dugdale, Chief, Criminal Division; Andre Birotte Jr., United States Attorney, Central District of California, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee / Cross–Appellant.

Rebecca P. Jones (argued), San Diego, CA, for DefendantAppellant / Cross–Appellee Franklin.

Michael J. Treman (argued), Santa Barbara, CA, for DefendantAppellant / Cross–Appellee Carr.

Mark Yanis (argued), Costa Mesa, CA, for DefendantAppellant / Cross–Appellee Anderson.

Before: HARRY PREGERSON, MARSHA S. BERZON, and MORGAN CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

CHRISTEN, Circuit Judge:

I. Introduction

Edwin Carr, Damien Anderson, and Mark Franklin were each indicted on three counts related to the armed robbery of a federal credit union. A jury found all of the defendants guilty on all counts. They appeal their convictions and sentences. The government cross-appeals, arguing the district court erroneously vacated portionsof the defendants' sentences. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 3731. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

II. Facts and Proceedings

Vons Federal Credit Union in Santa Fe Springs, California, was robbed in February 2008. Edwin Carr, Damien Anderson, and Mark Franklin were each indicted for: (1) conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; (2) bank robbery, along with enhancements for the use of a firearm and forced accompaniment in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and (e) respectively; and (3) use or possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

At trial, the jury heard testimony from four eyewitnesses to the crime: Lanita Fields, who was present at the crime scene; Barbara Wilson, one of two tellers inside the credit union; Nicole Cervantes, the other teller; and Robert Monken, a security guard. The jury also heard testimony from police officers and forensic scientists who investigated the scene and collected physical evidence.

Fields testified that on the morning of the robbery, she received a telephone call from an old boyfriend, Darius Wilson, who asked her to meet him. Darius directed Fields to a duplex where he asked Fields to participate in a bank robbery. Fields agreed, and Darius took Fields inside the duplex to meet some people. Fields testified that she was introduced to eight or ten men she had not seen before. At trial, Fields identified Carr, Anderson, and Franklin as having been in the room. Fields testified that she spent about eight to ten minutes inside the duplex, that she stood about five feet away from the defendants, and that she could see them clearly.

Fields left the duplex with several of the men. She explained that two of them got into her car while Franklin drove a red car with another man in it. The cars traveled in a convoy toward the credit union. Fields used marijuana on the way.

After driving about 30 minutes, the cars stopped a few blocks from the credit union and a passenger got out of Franklin's red car and into Fields's car. The men in Fields's car told her to drive to the credit union parking lot, which she did.

At the time of the robbery, Vons Federal Credit Union was located in a small trailer in the parking lot of Vons Distribution Center. Stairs and a ramp led to a deck outside the trailer, where customers walked up to be served through three teller windows without entering the trailer. The trailer had one door, which was locked at all times except to allow credit union employees to enter and exit, and to accept deliveries. Customers were never allowed to enter the trailer. Testimony at trial established that Franklin was a former member of Vons Federal Credit Union and a former employee of Vons Distribution Center.

One of the men in Fields's car was dressed as a FedEx employee. Fields identified this man as Damien Anderson, and she testified that Anderson got out of her car and approached the door of the credit union carrying a clipboard and a box.

Barbara Wilson, one of two credit union tellers working that morning, identified Edwin Carr as the man in the FedEx uniform. Wilson testified that when she saw the man wearing a delivery uniform approach the credit union, she opened the door to accept the package. Before Wilson could sign for the package, the man used the box to shove her back inside the trailer. Realizing that this was a robbery, Wilson attempted to push the robber out of the trailer doorway. She managed to advance a few feet outside before being pushed back inside. In the struggle, Wilson resisted the robber by grabbing one of the small wooden tables mounted under the teller windows outside the trailer. Eventually, the man overpowered Wilson and pushed her to the floor of the trailer.

Nicole Cervantes was the other teller working that morning. She testified that she heard Wilson say “Oh, FedEx” and get up to open the door to the credit union. After a minute or two, Cervantes left her station to see if Wilson needed help. Standing three or four feet away, she saw a man in a black sweatshirt in the middle of the trailer. The man said, “This is a robbery” and forced Cervantes at gunpoint to put cash into a black trash bag. Cervantes testified that her interaction with the robber wearing a black sweatshirt lasted about a minute. She also testified that the light was good and that she stood a few feet to a few inches away from the robber. Cervantes identified Damien Anderson as the second robber.

The men ran out of the trailer with the garbage bag and the money. Wilson recalled that the second robber pointed a gun at her face as he passed, but she did not get a look at his face. Wilson also testified that as he ran down the ramp outside the credit union, the robber with the gun pointed it over the fence at someone she could not see. Wilson estimated that three minutes passed between the time the first robber approached the credit union door and the time the robbers fled.

Waiting outside in her car, Lanita Fields watched the altercation in the credit union doorway. She told the jury that a second robber left her car and entered the credit union after the man in the FedEx uniform got out of her car. Fields identified Edwin Carr as the second robber. She also testified that a third, unidentified robber pulled out a gun, left her car, and entered the credit union. According to Fields, Franklin never got out of the red car.

As the robbery was in progress, Robert Monken, a security guard at Vons Distribution Center, saw Barbara Wilson fighting and shoving with a man on the platform outside the credit union. Monken estimated that about ten seconds later, three men ran out of the credit union and got into Fields's car. According to Monken, the last man out pointed his gun directly at Monken as he walked down the ramp.

Fields said the three men ran out of the credit union, jumped in her car, and ordered her to drive. She saw Monken pursuing them in his security van and testified that two of the three men in her car started shooting at the security van as it chased them.

Eventually, the men ordered Fields to stop in a residential neighborhood where they got out of her car and ran into a backyard. Monken was still following Fields, but she managed to evade him.

Driving separately in a “maroon” Buick, Franklin was stopped near the credit union shortly after the robbery was reported. He told the arresting officer that he had been at Vons Distribution Center looking for a job, but later stated that he was in the area to have lunch with a friend. A search of Franklin's maroon Buick revealed a baseball cap and a cell phone on which calls to and from Anderson had been made and received on the morning of the robbery. DNA testing on the baseball cap revealed DNA consistent with Anderson.

The government recovered several other pieces of corroborating physical evidence. A black sweatshirt with DNA on it consistent with Carr was found in a backyard near where the robbers fled on foot after leaving Fields's car. The sweatshirt was found next to coins and money traced to the robbery.

In addition to this testimony concerning the events that occurred on the day of the robbery, the jury heard evidence that Fields was interviewed by Agent Taglioretti of the FBI eighteen months after the robbery. The interrogation was recorded. Fields was told that surveillance cameras showed her car at the scene of the robbery and that witnesses identified her as one of the drivers. Confronted with evidence of her involvement in the crime and told that she faced “very serious” exposure to charges, Fields identified Carr, Franklin, and Anderson as participants in the robbery. She selected their photographs from a series of photos Taglioretti displayed during the interrogation. At trial, Fields testified about her pretrial identification of the defendants over their objection.

After the jury found all three defendants guilty of all charges, the defendants filed motions for a new trial and judgment of acquittal. The district court granted Franklin's Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Johnson v. Soto
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • April 7, 2015
    ...array in which defendant's photograph was darker and clearer was not impermissibly suggestive); see also United States v. Carr, 761 F.3d 1068, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2014) (fact that witness felt pressured and had anincentive to cooperate in the hope of receiving a lesser charge or a lighter sen......
  • Menzies v. Powell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 7, 2022
    ...officers had allegedly failed to provide the witnesses with admonitions required by department policy); accord United States v. Carr , 761 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that identification testimony wasn't undermined by a police officer's failure to admonish a witness that the......
  • United States v. Bruce
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 12, 2021
    ...motion for new trial.II. We review de novo "[t]he constitutionality of pretrial identification procedures." United States v. Carr , 761 F.3d 1068, 1073 (9th Cir. 2014). We likewise review de novo the denial of a motion for a new trial arising from the government's duty to produce exculpator......
  • Edwards v. Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 1, 2016
    ...procedure] was sufficiently reliable such that it does not implicate the defendant's due process rights." U.S. v. Carr, 761 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972) (looking at the totality of circumstances to determine if the identification was re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...U.S. v. Perez, 956 F.3d 970, 975 (7th Cir. 2020) (same); U.S. v. Chastain, 979 F.3d 586, 594 (8th Cir. 2020) (same); U.S. v. Carr, 761 F.3d 1068, 1083 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to recuse reviewed for plain error when issue not raised before trial court); U.S. v. Nickl, 427 F.3d 1286, 1297-98......

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