Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
United States v. Robinson | 161 F.3d 463 (1998)
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. This popular saying means that an unknown object can be identified by comparing it to a similar known object. But can such a concept be used in court to identify the perpetrator of a crime by comparing two uniquely similar crimes? United States versus Robinson considers this question.
The United States charged Richard Robinson with two armed bank robberies. The first occurred on April eighth in Anderson, Indiana. The second occurred on April eighteenth in Fishers, Indiana, twenty-five miles from Anderson. Robinson pleaded guilty to the second robbery but went to trial for the first.
At trial for the first robbery, the judge allowed the prosecution to admit evidence about the second robbery. The evidence showed that during the second robbery, Robinson drove a blue Chevrolet Cavalier, wore an orange ski mask, and carried a handgun and a Louis Vuitton duffle bag. He jumped over the teller counter and filled the bag with money himself after putting the gun down. Witnesses testified that the perpetrator of the first robbery also shared these attributes. The prosecution offered this evidence to establish that the unique method used in the first robbery was the same as Robinson’s method in the second. The prosecution also introduced evidence that police tried to stop Robinson’s car shortly after the second robbery, but he fled, and a car chase ensued. Police ultimately disabled Robinson’s car and arrested him after a significant struggle. A subsequent search of his car revealed the mask, the duffle bag, and the gun. The prosecution offered this evidence to establish that Robinson evaded police after the second robbery because his car contained evidence connecting him to the first robbery, thus displaying awareness of guilt. Before deliberations, the judge instructed the jury about the limited purposes for which they could consider the second robbery evidence.
Ultimately, the jury convicted Robinson, and he appealed to the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the evidence about the second robbery should’ve been excluded.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Ещё видео!