The Honor a b le L o u is F
. O b e r d o r f

e r , U n it e d

St a te s D is tr ic t Ju d g e f

o r th e D is tr ic t of * Columbi a, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0119n.06 F iled: F ebruary 26, 2008 No. 06-4209 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J I M M I E G. HINT Z, De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Be fore : MARTI

N and SUTTON , Circuit J udg es; and OB ERDORFER, District Judge. *
OB ERDOR FE R , Di s t ri ct J u d ge. A f ed er al j u ry

co n v i ct edJ i m m i e H i n t z o f conspira cy , arme d ba nk ro bb e ry , a

nd us e of a fi re a rm duri nga c ri me of vio le nc e fo r h is r ole a s a “g e tawa y ” dr ive r i n
a ba nk ro bb e ry in El y

ri a , O hio . H int z co nte nd s th a t th e re is i ns uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to s up po rt his
c on vic tio n. B e c a

us e a ratio na l juro r c ou ld h a ve c on c lud e d th a t H int z wa s g uil ty , w e a ff ir m.
I . BA CKGROUND
A. F a c ts I n the af ternoon of F ebrua

ry 24, 2005, a g un-wielding , masked white man of medium build,
w e ar i n g l o o s e - f

i t t i n g j e a n s a n d a b l u e s h i rt , e n t e r e d N a t i o n a l C i t y B a n k o n M i dw a y B o u l e va rd inNo. 06-4209

Un ite d S tat es v . H int z

- 2 - Ely ria, Ohio, fr om its parking- lot entranc e door. Joint Appendix (“JA”) 79, 84, 87, 88, 94. Present
wer e two teller s, the offic e mana g er, a nd one customer . J A 79, 81. Upon demand, one teller g ave the man money , including “bait money ”—tra cea ble bills t hat trig g er a

n alar m when moved. JA 95, 102. The ba

nk’s records showed that the alarm sounded at 1:13 p.m. and that the pol ice we re c alled at 1:15 p.m. J A 108, 110. The r obber the n exit ed by the par king- lot doors thr o u gh wh ich he ha d enter ed. JA 8 3
. A s th e r o b b e r w a s le a v in g , o n e te ll e r s a w in th e p a r k in g lo t th e “ b a c k e n d o f a
newe r looking car .” JA 83, 89, 92. S he d i d n o t notice it when the r obber w as ente ring the bank. J A 83, 89, 92. S he could not see inside the ca r, as it was disappe aringfrom her view. JA 84, 89. A later audit showed that $2,189 wa s missi ng from the teller s’ dra wer s. J A 101.
A s u rv eillance came ra at a store ne ar the bank had r ecor ded two alter nating views of the pa rk inglot . JA 1 16 , 1 40
. Th e vid e o s ho we d a statio na ry F or d T a ur us in t he pa rk inglot a t 1: 07 p. m. fac ing southbound toward t he bank. J A 120. At approximately 1:12 p.m., the car

disappea red f rom the c a me ra ’s vie w t o th e we st ( to t he ri g ht) . JA 1 24 . A t 1: 16 p. m., the c a r r e a pp e a re d in

vie w a s it moved towar d the door at t he bank. J A 124. There it paused, and a blur appear ed on the pa sseng er sid e of the Ta ur us ind ic a tin g “ so me kin d o f a c tiv ity .” JA 12 4, 12 7– 28 . T he Ta ur us the n mo ve d p a st the door, stay ed ther e momentar ily , and lef t the parking lot. J A 124, 127. The video did not show how many

people we re in the Ta

urus. J A 126, 139.
Offic ers r eviewe d this video at the s cene . J A 208. At about 1: 48 p.m., they broadc ast notice of an a rmed robbe ry

by a white male in jeans and a blue shirt possibly

trave ling we stbound on the Turnpike in a silver

For d Taurus w ith an Ohio plate. J A 2 0 8 . An Ohio Hig hway Patrol Offic er,No. 06-4209

Un ite d S tat es v . H int z

- 3 - Br ian Hann, w orking on the Ohio Turnpike just we st of Ely ria that a fternoon, r ece ived the dispatch
and pr e pa re d to watc h f

or the c a r. JA 20 9. A T a ur us a pp ro a c he d a

t a bo ut 2 :12 p. m., a

pp e a ri ngto be g oin g the sp e e d limit , with no vis ibl e lic e ns e plate or re g istra tio n on the fr on t, a

nd an O hio pla

te i nt h e r ea r. J A 2 0 9 , 2 1 0
. As Of fi ce r Ha n n p u l l ed b eh i n d t h e T au ru s , i t m ad e an ab ru p tl an e c h an ge and ente red a

service plaza. J A 209. Off icer Hann fo l l o we d the ca

r into the plaza. J A 211. He observe d the driver

—later identified as c o-def endant Jason Bric ker—w ear ing blue jeans a nd a blue T-shirt as he exit ed the car to f uel it. J A 211, 212, 214. There was also a passeng er, later ide ntified as Hintz. J A 211, 216. Offic er Hann called for backup and then followed the Taur us westbound at
a norma l speed. JA 212. W hen the Taurus exit ed the Turnpike, Hann and the bac kup office r pulled it over. JA 213.
Offic er H ann plac ed B ricke r in handc uffs, tol d him that he was in investig ative custody , and asked him whe re he was c oming f rom. J A 213. B ricke r re plied that he wa s coming from Ashland, wher e he lived. JA 213, 215. Hintz also said that he wa s coming from Ashland and that he was g oin g to F inl e y

to vis it h is g ir lf

ri e nd . JA 2 16 , 2 28 . B ut H int z the n s a id t hat he wa s p ic ke d u

p in El y ri a , w he re he liv e d at a

mob ile -h ome pa

rk
. JA 17 0, 22 8. Of

fi c e r H a nn

re a d H int z his Miranda rig hts, and then aske d him more questions, which led to Hintz’s responses that he had known B ricke r for a bout two y ear s. J A 222. Hintz said that he had no ide a what time Bricke r had pic ked him up. J A 222.
The off icer s towed the Ta

urus to a gar ag e where they conducte d an inventory

sear ch in the p r e s e n c e o f

B r i c k e r a n d H i n t z . J A 1 6 2
. T h e o f

f i c e r s d i s c o v e r e d $ 2 , 0 7 9 , i n c l u d i n g t h e b a i tm o n e y,No. 06-4209

Un ite d S tat es v . H int z

The sourc e of this lead ( Br icker ) wa s not identified to the jury . J A 285. 1 - 4 - in the console of the Taurus. JA 162–63, 170. Additionally , Br icker had $161 i n h i s wa l l et, and Hintz had about $60 or $70 in his. J A 170. I n the trunk, there was a black, zipper-hood sw eatshirt
c on ta ini nga

loa de d, .3 2- c a lib e r r e vo lve r; a pa ir of wh ite g lov e s; a blu e sk i ma sk ; a nd bla c k te nn is shoes. J A 165–67. I n the back seat, there was a ski mask and black jacke t. J A 181. At some point the offic ers a lso learne d that the Taur us’s license plate had be en re ported stolen one we ek ea rlier. J A 166.
Th e po lic e su sp e c te d th a t H int z wa s th e g e tawa y dr ive r. JA 28 1. Ag e nt Ed wa rd Sa tte rf ie ld obtained a le ad that the g etawa y d ri v er m i gh t be someone other than H intz . J A 290. Ag ent 1 Sa t t e r f i e l d i n t e r v i e w e d t h a t p e r s o n a t h o m e a b o u t a w e e k l a t e r ; t h a t p e r s o n h a d a n a lib i f or his wher eabouts at the time of the rob b er y . J A 290–91, 293. To test Hintz’s claim that Bricke r had pic ke d H int z up a t ho me a ft e r t he ro bb e ry , Ag e nt Satte rf ie ld, on a no the r af

te rn oo n, dr ov e the ro ute he be l i e v e d

B r i c k e r w o u l d h a v e f o l l o w e d t o d o t h a t
. JA 2 6 9
. I tt o o k A g e n tS a t t e rf

ie ld approximately

74 minutes to make the trip from the bank to Hintz’s home and then to wher e Of fice r Hann spotted the Ta

urus—appr ox imately

15 minutes longe r than the time be tween the robber y and when Of fice r Ha nn actua lly

spotted the Taur

us. J A 268–69.
B. Procedur al History
On J uly 7, 2005, a federa l g rand jury in Cleveland, Ohio, re turned a superse ding indictment char g ing H intz and B ricke r with conspira cy to co m m it bank robber

y , see 18 U.S.C. § 371 (CountNo. 06-4209

Un ite d S tat es v . H int z

- 5 - 1 ); ar m ed b ank robbery , see 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 1 1 2 (a ) an d (d ) (C o u n t 2 ); an d u s e of a fi re ar m d u ri n g a crime of violence, see 1 8 U. S
. C. § 924(c)( 1) (Count 3). JA 24–30. Bricke r plea d g uilty . J A 407. On April 10, 2006, Hintz went to trial.
Af te r p re se ntatio n o f t

he e vid e nc e dis c us se d ab ov e , Hin tz move d for a c qu itt a l. JA 30 3. Hi s attorney acknow ledg ed that “it’s clea r that Jason Bricke r committed this crime,” but c ontended that the re wa s “ no su

bs tanti a l e vid e nc e ” that H int z wa s in vo lve d, “ oth e r t ha n h im b e inga

pa sse ng e r i n the ca r.” JA 303.
The c ourt denied the acquittal motion. The court e x plained that “[t]here ce rtainly is evidence from which a

jury could conclude bey ond a reasonable doubt that a robbe ry was c ommitt ed and that it wa s perpe trated by more than one person, someone other than Mr. B ricke r, bec ause someone was driving that car

and moving that car , other than Mr. Br icker .” J A 305. Additionally , “the jury
. . . hear d evidenc e that less than one hour af ter the b an k was robbe d, Mr. Hintz was found in the ca r wi th M r. B ri c ke r, a lon g wi th o ve r $ 20 00 that w a s j us t si tt ingin t he c on so le , a lon g wi th s ome clothing in the tr

unk and a gun that
. . . the jury could conclude was used in the robber y .” JA 305.
I n the ensuing closing argument, Hintz’s attorney stated t hat it was possible to drive fr om the bank to wher e Of

fice r Ha nn stopped the Taur

us in less tim e than the hour it took befor e the Ta urus
a c tu a l l y w a s s t o p p e d , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t B r i c k e r h a d t i m e t o , a n d d i d , p i c k H i n t z u p a f t e r t h e r o b b e r

y. J A 371. The jury

re j ec t ed t h i s argument and found H intz g uilty on all three counts. The district court then se ntence d Hint z t o 3 0 y ears in prison: 5 y ear s for c onspiracy ; 25 y ear s for a rmed ba nkNo. 06-4209

Un ite d S tat es v . H int z

- 6 - ro bb e ry (c on c ur re nt w iththe c on sp ir a c y

se nte nc e ); a nd

5 y e a rs fo r u se of

a fi re a rm duri nga c ri me of vio le nc e . JA 4 13 . H int z br ou g ht t his a pp e a l.
I I . DI SCUS SI ON
“When consider ing a

challeng e to the s u f

f ic ie n cy of evide nce to sustain a c onviction on direct
a p p e a l, th e r e le v a n t qu e s ti o n is w h e th er ‘ anyrational trier of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime bey ond a re asonable doubt.’” United States v. Hughe s , 50 5 F .3 d 5 78 , 5 92 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Jack

son v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) . “The appellate court must view all evidenc e and r esolve a ll reasona ble infer ence s in favor of the g overnme nt.” Id. (c i t i n g Jack son , 44 3 U
. S
. a t3 1 9 )
. “ B e c a

u s e t h e i s s u e i s o n e o f

l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y , t h e c o urtn e i t h e r

‘ i n d e p e nd e ntl y weig hs the evidenc e, nor judg es the c redibility of witnesses who te stified at trial.’” Id. (quot ing United States v. Talley , 164 F .3 d 989 , 9 96 (6 th C ir . 1 99 9) ). “ An a pp e llate c ourt

c a nn ot s ub sti tut e its judgment for

that of the jury .” Id. (c i t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . H ill iar d , 1 1 F.3d 618, 620 ( 6th Cir. 1993)). More over, “ circ umstantial evidence al o ne ca n sustain a g uilty

verdic t and . . . [such] evidenc e nee d not remove e very rea sonabl e h y

pothesis except that of g uilt.” Id. (q u o t i n g United States v. Stone , 7 48 F .2 d 3 61 , 3 62 (6 th C ir . 1 98 4) ). “ Th is s tand a rd is a great ob st acle to
overc ome and pr esents the a ppellant in a cr iminal case w ith a very heavy burden.” Id. (citations omi tte d) . T he e le me nts of e a c h c ount f

or wh ic h H int z wa s c on vic te d a re a s f oll ow s: Conspiracy. To prove c onspiracy under 18 U .S.C. § 371, t he g overnme nt must show (1) the exis tence of an a g ree ment to violate the law; (2) knowle dg e and intent to join the conspira cy ; andNo. 06-4209

Un ite d S tat es v . H int z

- 7 - (3) an overt act c onstitut ing a ctual par ticipation in the conspirac y . Hughes , 5 05 F .3 d at 59 3. A t a c it
or ma te ri a l un de rs tand ing a mon g the pa rt ie s to a c on sp ir a c y

is s uf fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli shthe a g re e me nt, and conspira cy

may be infe rre d from circumstantial evidenc e that may rea sonably

be interpr eted a s participation in a common plan. Id.
Armed Bank

Robbery. To prove arme d bank robber y under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) a nd (d), the g overnme nt must show (1) that by forc e or threat of forc e; (2) the defe ndant attempted to take fr om a per son in another’ s prese nce an item of value; (3) that is in the custody or control of

a bank; a nd (4) in doing so, place d in jeopardy the life of a

ny person by

use of a dang erous wea

pon or devic e. Un ite d S tat es v . D av is , 306 F.3d 398, 408–409 ( 6th Cir. 2002). Hintz was convicted of this count and the f inal count (the f

irea rm cha rg e discussed be low) as a n aider and abettor, making him as g uilty of the substantive off

enses a s the principal. Id. a t 40 9. Ai din g and a be tti ngre qu ir e s th a t a defe ndant “in some sort associate him self with the venture, that he pa rticipates in it as something he wishes to bring about, and t h at h e seek by his action to make it succe ed.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, aiding and abe tting involves (1) an ac t by a def endant that co n t ri b u tes to the execution of a crime, a nd (2) the intent to aid in its commission. Id. Use of a Firea r m During a Crime of Violence . To prove a iding a nd abetting the use of a fire ar m d u ri n g a crime of violence unde r 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the g overnme nt must show that the defe ndant associated and pa rticipated in the use of the fir ear m in connection with the under ly ing crime. Un ite d S

tat es v . F ra nk lin , 415 F.3d 537, 545 (6th Cir. 2005). “The g overnme nt must show that the def

endant wa s a par

ticipant rathe r t han merely a knowing spectator, that his prese nce at theNo. 06-4209

Un ite d S tat es v . H int z

- 8 - scene of the c rime wa s not surplusag e, and that the crime would not have transpired w ithout him .” Id. “This ca

n be satisfied if the acc omplice knows that the principa l is armed and a cts with the intent to assist or influence the commission of the underly ing pr edicate cr ime.” Id. Hintz acknowledg es that the e vidence shows that Br icker committed the bank robber y , but argues that the e vidence is insufficient to show his own participation. W e disag ree . First, ther e w as evidence of an ac complice at the scene of the robbe ry beca use the
surv e ill anc e vid e o indi c a te d tha t the Ta ur us mov e d dur ing the tim e of the ro bb e ry . Co ns ist e nt w ith this, the first teller st ated that she saw the back end of the car when the r obber le ft, but did not noti ce it when he f

irst appea red.
S e c o n d , t h e r e w a s s u

b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a tH i n t z w a s t h a ta c c o mp l i c e . A f t e r t h e r o b b e r

y, he wa s in the c a r wit

h the ba nk mon e y , ski ma sk s, a

nd the g un . He c on te nd s only that “ it i s c e rta inl y
c on c e iv ab le that [after the r obbery ] Jason B ricke r picked him up at the mobile home park w here he liv e d a nd the n e nte re d th e tur

np ik e.” Hi nt z ’s B r. a t 14 (e mph a sis a dd e d) . B ut, tho ug h th is possibili ty

might b e “c o n ce i v able,” he make s no showing that he could not have been dr iving the g etawa y car at the time of the crime. Cf. Hughes , 505 F.3d at 592 (noting that the “evide nce ne ed not remove e very

rea sonable hy

pothesis except that of g uilt”). I ndeed, A g ent Satterfie ld’s retra cing of thi s a lle g e d r oute too k 1 5 mi nu te s lo ng e r t ha n it too k f or the Ta ur us to t ra ve l f ro m th e ba

nk to Offic er H ann’s loca

tion, sugg esting that Br icker had not detoure d to pick up Hintz at home but that Hi ntz h a d b e e n w ithB ri c ke r a ll a lon g . Hi ntz a lso g a ve inc on sis te nt state me nts wh e n s top pe d, fi rs tNo. 06-4209

Un ite d S tat es v . H int z

- 9 - s ay i n g t h at h e w as co m i n g fr o m As h l an d an d t h en s ay i n g t h at h e w as co m i n g fr o m E l y ri a. Al t h o u gh the police who stoppe d the Taur us found B ricke r driving with Hintz i n the passeng er se at, a
rea sonable juror

could have found that Hintz switched place s with Bricker at some point after the robber y . Finally , i t i s u n l i kely

that there was a

g etawa y driver othe r than Hintz beca use all of the money was found in the c ar w ith Bricke r and Hintz ; a reasonable juror could also have found that
ano the r p art ic ipa

nt w ou ld h a ve take n h is s ha re of the loo t.
Acc ording ly , sufficie nt evidence exis ts for a r eason able juror to conclude that Hintz was g uilty of eac h char g e. His role as the g etawa y driver established his (1) par ticipation in a common plan, showi n g co n s p i ra cy , Hughes , 505 F.3d at 593; and (2) a iding a nd abetting both the arme d robber y and the use of a firea

rm during the armed robber y —events that he wished to bring about and soug ht to make succ eed, Da v is , 306 F.3d at 409. This evidence is consistent with that in ot her a rmed bank-r obbery

case s. Se e Un ite d S

tat es v . Ta te , 575 F .2 d 1 15 2, 11 54 (6 th C ir . 1 97 8) (b oth de fe nd a nts
wer e ar rested in a car containing bait money from the r obbed bank a

nd an ey ewitness identified one de fe nd ant a s th e ro bb e r) ; United States v. Cooper , 375 F.3d 1041, 1049–50 ( 10th Cir. 2004) (def endant wa s found less than 24 hours afte r the robbe ry near his car, w hich met the desc ription of the g e tawa

y c a r a nd c on ta ine d b a it m on e y

and the same kin d o f m a sk

us e d b y the ro bb e r) ; United Sta te s v . B e nn e tt , 908 F.2d 189, 196 (7th Cir. 1990) (def endant was arr ested in motel surrounded by
wea pons, cash, a

nd a wig matching the desc ription of the g etawa y driver’ s hair color ).
The cases Hintz relies on involve improper sentencing enhanc ements or convictions wher e the def endant wa s merely

prese nt with the pr incipal per petrator. See Un ite d S

tat es v . O ’B e rry , No.No. 06-4209

Un ite d S tat es v . H int z

- 10 - 94-6536, 1996 U.S
. App. L EXI S 1412, at *8 (6th Cir. J an. 9, 1996) (reje cting firea rm enha nceme nt fo r pa sse ng e r i n c a r w he re g un wa s f ound ); United States v. Cochran , 14 F.3d 1128 (6th Cir. 1994) (s a me ); United States v. Tincher , No. 92-3796, 1993 U.S. A pp. L EXI S 33340, at *11 (6th Cir. Dec
. 21, 1993) (f

inding insuff

icient evide n ce where defe ndant was se en talking to his brother who ha d
r e cently passed a counter feit bill). Her e, by contra st, sufficient evide nce show ed that Hintz was more than simply

a s s o c ia ti n g with Bric ker; a

rea sonable juror

could infer

—based on the surveillance video
s u gges t i n g t h at t h e c ar

re p o s i t i o n edi t s el f, t h e t el l er ’s t es t i m o n y co n s i s t en t wi t h t h at re p o s i t i o n i n g, and Hintz’s presenc e in the car wi t h t he bank mone y shortly afte r the robbe ry

—that he wa s the g etawa y driver.
I I I . CONCL USI ON
F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m.