Opinion ID: 753826
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timothy Rucker

Text: 9 Rucker asserts that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Meadows, 91 F.3d 851, 854 (7th Cir.1996). His primary contention is that no eyewitnesses placed him in the bank. While true, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence in the record that a rational trier of fact could conclude that Rucker was the third bank robber. 10 The evidence against Washington was overwhelming. It included eyewitnesses at the bank; eyewitnesses who put Washington near the bank soon after the robbery, wearing the same hat and jacket as one of the robbers; and recovery of weapons used in the robbery from the storage locker of Washington's girlfriend. The government's primary case against Rucker, however, was far more circumstantial. No eyewitnesses identified Rucker as a bank robber, although he met the general physical description of the third robber. Additionally, there are no fingerprints or other physical evidence linking Rucker to the crime scene. A shirt with a laundry mark Rucker 7 was found near the bank, but witnesses in the bank stated that either Robinson or Washington wore the shirt, not the third robber. 11 If this were all of the evidence against Rucker, it would clearly be insufficient to sustain a conviction. However, several witnesses placed Rucker and Washington together, near the bank, shortly after the robbery, on foot. Sonny Lawrence testified that Rucker and Joe were together, running towards Mrs. Howard's house. Mrs. Howard's house was over six blocks from the bank, but a trail of evidence linked to the crime led from the bank to a yard on the same block as Mrs. Howard's residence. Lawrence also testified that Joe dropped a green and white Nike jacket and a blue and gray Georgetown Hoyas baseball cap. A friend quickly picked them up and later actually sold the green jacket to Lawrence and the baseball cap to someone else. The bank surveillance tape clearly shows one robber wearing both of these items. A few minutes later, Lawrence entered the Howard's residence and saw the two males. Helen Howard and others identified the second male as Washington. The jury could permissibly infer that for Rucker to be with Washington before Washington had the opportunity to discard the apparel worn in the robbery, Rucker must have been involved in the robbery. 12 There was still more evidence that Rucker was involved. Lawrence testified that police were searching the neighborhood, and instead of entering the Howard residence with Washington, Rucker asked Lawrence for a ride away from the neighborhood. When Lawrence refused (because Rucker did not have $20.00) Rucker went into the house. A short time later, Rucker and Washington borrowed a car from Helen Howard's niece and left together. The jury could reasonably infer that Rucker's desire to leave the neighborhood and his willingness to ask a stranger for a ride was motivated by a fear of getting caught. While this is circumstantial evidence, it is nonetheless probative evidence of guilt. The jury was entitled to believe Lawrence's testimony, and his testimony placed Rucker and Washington together, near the bank, while Washington was still wearing clothing he wore in the bank. Moreover, Rucker's unusual conduct of soliciting transportation from someone he did not know supported the government's theory that Rucker was attempting to flee the vicinity of the bank because by hiding the car keys, Pearl Hill had foiled his getaway plan. 13 Although Rucker does not cite it, this case is nevertheless properly distinguished from United States v. Grose, 525 F.2d 1115, 1120 (7th Cir.1975), where this court did reverse a bank robbery conviction due to insufficient evidence. In Grose, the government accused James Eaton of driving the getaway car in a bank robbery. Eaton was seen with the identified bank robber five hours after the robbery, and again four days later in Chicago. Also, Eaton left for Chicago from Milwaukee on the night of the robbery. We reversed Eaton's conviction after concluding that the fatal gap in the Government's case is its failure to place defendant Eaton near the [robbed bank] on the morning of the robbery. Id. Rucker cannot make the same complaint. Sonny Lawrence, Helen Howard, and others spotted Rucker with Washington just minutes after the robbery on foot near the bank. A rational jury could have relied on this evidence to conclude that Rucker participated in the robbery.