Opinion ID: 62941
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Washington Mutual Bank

Text: Bannister argues the district court improperly admitted evidence regarding the uncharged Washington Mutual Bank robbery under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). We conclude there was no reversible error in the admission of this 10 evidence; even assuming, arguendo, that the district court erred, its admission was harmless. The properly admitted evidence against Bannister provided ample support for every crime of which he was convicted. See United States v. Burgest, 519 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2008). C. Co-conspirators’ gold teeth and association with the “Knotty Heads” Bannister challenges the admission of testimony from co-conspirators’ relating to the significance of having gold teeth and Bannister’s association with a group known as the “Knotty Heads.” Bannister contends this evidence should not have been admitted because it was irrelevant, hearsay, and unduly prejudicial. Although Bannister complains of a hearsay problem, he does not explain why the statements that were made regarding gold teeth and group membership are hearsay, as opposed to testimony by fellow Knotty Head members with personal knowledge of the group’s practices. As to relevance and prejudice, the testimony was relevant to demonstrate Bannister’s membership in the Knotty Heads and status within the group. This information constituted circumstantial evidence of Bannister’s level of involvement in the robberies. See United States v. Bradberry, 466 F.3d 1249, 1253-54 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting district court has discretion to admit gang membership if it is relevant evidence of association). In this case, the prejudicial value of the evidence did not outweigh its probative value; therefore, 11 the district court did not abuse its discretion. We conclude the evidence was properly admitted, and in any event, there was no reversible error. D. Use of robbery proceeds to pay attorney’s fees Bannister contests the admission of evidence that bank robbery proceeds were used to pay an attorney for the representation of Quinton Bannister’s brother, Juan Bannister. The Government notes evidence of payments of $49,000 in cash to Juan’s attorney after the First National Bank robbery served as corroborating evidence and gave Bannister a motive to continue robbing banks. There was no reversible error in the admission of this evidence. E. Al Minus’s testimony Bannister assigns error in two respects to the testimony of Al Minus. First, Bannister complains that Minus referred to the death of his brother, Derrick Minus, who was killed in prison. We conclude, as did the district court, that Minus’s testimony about the death of his brother was not prejudicial to Bannister. Second, Bannister complains Minus testified about speaking to a detective on March 27, 2004—prior to any of the charged robberies occurring—“regarding bank robberies” and said he provided the detective information about Quinton Bannister. Bannister is correct that this testimony should not have been allowed given that it predates any of the charged indictments; however, the district court 12 immediately recognized the problem and interrupted the testimony to give the following curative instruction: Let me stop for a minute. Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to ask you to disregard, to strike and not consider the testimony of Mr. Minus regarding anything that he says that he told the police about Quinton Bannister. Okay. On March 27th, 2004. The district court’s instruction to the jury cured any possible prejudice. In conclusion, we find no reversible error in the testimony of Al Minus.