Opinion
5:19-CR-38 (MTT)
11-10-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. WESLEY SORROW, Defendant.
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the reasons stated at the pretrial conference, the Court denies the government's motion in limine to preclude any mention of bank policies and procedures requiring employees to not resist robbery efforts. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) requires that a defendant use “force and violence or intimidation[.]” Relevant here, “intimidation” occurs “when an ordinary person in a teller's position reasonably could infer a threat of bodily harm from the defendant's acts.” United States v. Kelley, 412 F.3d. 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 2005). A defendant should be allowed wide latitude to demonstrate that he did not do anything that would allow an inference of a threat of bodily harm. The Court will address the admissibility of evidence of bank policies and procedures if and when that evidence is tendered.
The defendant's objection to the government's notice of intent to use Rule 404(b) evidence-the defendant's previous conviction for bank robbery-is, for now, overruled. For the reasons stated at the pretrial conference, circumstances related to the prior conviction are possibly intrinsic. But the record establishes, for now, that the defendant's prior conviction for bank robbery is admissible under Rule 404(b). First, the prior conviction is relevant to at least one issue other than the defendant's character- his intent to rob a bank. See United States v. Durham, 554 Fed.Appx. 901, 902-03 (11th Cir. 2014). Second, the government has sufficient proof to allow the jury to find that the defendant committed the prior bank robbery. Finally, at this point, the Court cannot say that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice.
SO ORDERED.