Drizzt
Member
U.S. court: LA bank robber had gun, wasn't 'armed'
By Dan Whitcomb, Reuters, 5/20/2003
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A federal appeals court Tuesday threw out the armed bank robbery conviction of a Los Angeles man after finding that -- while he admitted being armed and robbing the bank -- he did not mean to show his gun to a teller while demanding money.
Deshon Rene Odom carried a loaded revolver in the waistband of his pants while he and an accomplice robbed a Los Angeles-area bank in 1996, but he did not brandish the weapon or even mention it to employees.
A manager noticed the gun only when Odom raised his jacket to stuff away a pillowcase full of stolen cash.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in a written ruling that that Odom should have been convicted of unarmed bank robbery -- which carries a lesser prison term -- instead of armed robbery. The court ordered a Los Angeles federal judge to sentence Odom again.
Odom's attorney, Maria Stratton, said the ruling would not likely change his sentence, because he was also convicted of two other charges. But she said her client ''didn't commit an armed robbery'' and should not have been convicted of one.
''He never brought it out, he never showed it, he never used it or waved it around, it was shown inadvertently,'' Stratton said. ''The bank robbery statute says you have to use the gun in the course of a robbery, not just have it.''
Assistant U.S. Attorney James Spertus, who prosecuted the case, said his office was considering its options for appeal.
Legal experts said the decision could create a new argument for defense lawyers who could say that their clients brought a gun to a bank but did not intend to use it.
''It could open the floodgates to such an argument,'' said Stan Goldman, a professor at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles. ''On the other hand, just because a lawyer wants to make an argument doesn't mean anybody is going to buy it.''
Ninth Circuit Judge Richard Clifton conceded in his written opinion that the decision ''may seem anomalous'' because it meant that defendants who brandish toy guns could be convicted of armed bank robbery while those who have real guns hidden in their pants could not.
But he added: ''The display of the gun tucked into Odom's waistband does not appear to us to represent 'active employment' of the weapon on his part. He knowingly put it there, of course, but more than possession is required.''
The famously liberal 9th Circuit infuriated Americans last year by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a ruling that is headed for the Supreme Court for review.
http://boston.com/dailynews/140/technology/U_S_court_LA_bank_robber_had_g:.shtml
By Dan Whitcomb, Reuters, 5/20/2003
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A federal appeals court Tuesday threw out the armed bank robbery conviction of a Los Angeles man after finding that -- while he admitted being armed and robbing the bank -- he did not mean to show his gun to a teller while demanding money.
Deshon Rene Odom carried a loaded revolver in the waistband of his pants while he and an accomplice robbed a Los Angeles-area bank in 1996, but he did not brandish the weapon or even mention it to employees.
A manager noticed the gun only when Odom raised his jacket to stuff away a pillowcase full of stolen cash.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in a written ruling that that Odom should have been convicted of unarmed bank robbery -- which carries a lesser prison term -- instead of armed robbery. The court ordered a Los Angeles federal judge to sentence Odom again.
Odom's attorney, Maria Stratton, said the ruling would not likely change his sentence, because he was also convicted of two other charges. But she said her client ''didn't commit an armed robbery'' and should not have been convicted of one.
''He never brought it out, he never showed it, he never used it or waved it around, it was shown inadvertently,'' Stratton said. ''The bank robbery statute says you have to use the gun in the course of a robbery, not just have it.''
Assistant U.S. Attorney James Spertus, who prosecuted the case, said his office was considering its options for appeal.
Legal experts said the decision could create a new argument for defense lawyers who could say that their clients brought a gun to a bank but did not intend to use it.
''It could open the floodgates to such an argument,'' said Stan Goldman, a professor at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles. ''On the other hand, just because a lawyer wants to make an argument doesn't mean anybody is going to buy it.''
Ninth Circuit Judge Richard Clifton conceded in his written opinion that the decision ''may seem anomalous'' because it meant that defendants who brandish toy guns could be convicted of armed bank robbery while those who have real guns hidden in their pants could not.
But he added: ''The display of the gun tucked into Odom's waistband does not appear to us to represent 'active employment' of the weapon on his part. He knowingly put it there, of course, but more than possession is required.''
The famously liberal 9th Circuit infuriated Americans last year by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a ruling that is headed for the Supreme Court for review.
http://boston.com/dailynews/140/technology/U_S_court_LA_bank_robber_had_g:.shtml