Federal Bank Robbery Defense

Federal Bank Robbery Defense

The prosecution of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. Section 2113 produces some of the most severe sentences in the federal system, and some of the most contestable convictions. What separates a twenty-year exposure from a life sentence is often a single factual determination about the presence of a weapon or the movement of a hostage. What separates a conviction from an acquittal is the meaning assigned to the word intimidation.

Section 2113 operates as a tiered statute. Subsection (a) addresses robbery by force, violence, or intimidation, and bank entry with felonious intent, each carrying a maximum of twenty years. Subsection (b) covers larceny of property exceeding one thousand dollars from a federally insured institution, with a ceiling of ten years. Subsection (d) escalates the exposure to twenty-five years where the defendant assaults any person or puts a life in jeopardy through the use of a dangerous weapon. Subsection (e) governs the most extreme conduct. When a person is killed or forced to accompany the defendant, the statute authorizes life imprisonment.

The elemental structure demands precision from the government. Prosecutors must establish that the property belonged to or was in the custody of a federally insured bank, credit union, or savings and loan association. They must prove the taking was accomplished through force, violence, or intimidation. And they must demonstrate that the defendant acted with knowledge and intent. Each of these requirements presents opportunities for the defense that the statutory text alone does not reveal.

Consider the question of intimidation. A teller who receives a handwritten demand note has experienced what the courts call a “note job.” In United States v. Gipson, the defendant wore sunglasses, kept one hand in his pocket, and passed a note reading “This is a robbery.” The conviction was affirmed. The Eighth Circuit has held that the objective test governs. The subjective fear of the victim is immaterial. What matters is whether a reasonable person in the position of the teller would have felt apprehension of bodily harm. United States v. McCranie confirms the point. A conviction stood despite the teller testifying that she did not feel afraid.

This objective standard is the precise terrain where defense counsel must operate. A note requesting money, absent any reference to a weapon, absent any threatening posture, absent any verbal command, may fail the reasonable-person test. The distinction between a demand and a request is not semantic. It is constitutional. The government must prove intimidation beyond a reasonable doubt, and the definition of that term determines whether the conduct constitutes a federal felony or an act that, however desperate, falls short of the statutory threshold.

The sentencing architecture compounds the stakes. Under USSG Section 2B3.1, the base offense level for robbery is 20. The specific offense characteristics function as a ratchet. Possession of a firearm adds five levels. Brandishing adds five. Discharge adds seven. If the property belonged to a financial institution, add two. If a victim sustained bodily injury, the increase correlates to severity. If anyone was physically restrained, add two levels. Abduction adds four. The cumulative effect transforms a guideline range that might begin at thirty-three to forty-one months into one exceeding fifteen years.

Then there is Section 924(c). A defendant who uses, carries, or brandishes a firearm during a crime of violence faces a mandatory consecutive sentence. The minimum is five years for possession, seven for brandishing, ten for discharge. In December 2024, the Eleventh Circuit decided United States v. Armstrong and held that bank robbery under Section 2113(a) qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of Section 924(c). The defendant in that case received 420 months. The case is now the subject of a petition for certiorari, and the question of whether intimidation-based bank robbery satisfies the elements clause remains unsettled in several circuits. That doctrinal instability is itself a tool of defense.

The FBI clears approximately sixty percent of bank robberies, a rate exceeded only by homicide. Surveillance footage, dye packs, bait money with recorded serial numbers, GPS trackers concealed in cash bundles, and the testimony of multiple witnesses produce a body of evidence that appears, at first examination, to foreclose contestation. The appearance is misleading.

Identification remains the most fertile ground for challenge. Surveillance cameras capture images of variable quality. Tellers under duress observe faces for seconds. Cross-racial identification errors are well documented in the social science literature and increasingly acknowledged by federal courts in motions to suppress or limit eyewitness testimony. Where the government relies on photographic identification rather than physical evidence tying the defendant to the scene, the defense occupies a position of genuine strength.

Duress operates as an affirmative defense that, when supported by the evidence, requires the government to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant must demonstrate an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm, a well-grounded fear that the threat would be carried out, no reasonable opportunity to escape, and a direct causal relationship between the threat and the criminal act. The evidentiary demands are substantial. Contemporaneous communications, medical records consistent with coercion, and corroborating testimony from third parties constitute the kind of proof that transforms duress from an abstract theory into a trial defense capable of producing an acquittal.

Entrapment occupies a distinct doctrinal space. The defense requires proof that the government induced the defendant to commit an offense and that the defendant lacked predisposition. In the bank robbery context, cases involving cooperating witnesses or undercover agents who supply the plan, the target, and the operational logistics present the strongest entrapment claims. The inquiry into predisposition is factual, not legal, and the absence of any prior similar conduct weighs in the defendant’s favor.

Sentencing itself has become a separate theater of advocacy. The guidelines are advisory after United States v. Booker, and district courts retain discretion to impose sentences below the calculated range. Acceptance of responsibility reduces the offense level by two or three points. Cooperation under Section 5K1.1 permits a departure below any mandatory minimum. A defendant’s mental health history, substance abuse, childhood trauma, and employment record are cognizable under Section 3553(a). The most recent data from the Sentencing Commission shows that below-range sentences account for a significant percentage of all federal robbery dispositions. The guideline calculation is the beginning of the sentencing conversation, not its conclusion.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted Multi-State Licensed Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

The decline in bank robbery prosecutions itself tells a story. The FBI reported 1,362 bank robberies in 2023, the lowest figure since 1990. The federal caseload has contracted accordingly. But the cases that remain tend to involve higher loss amounts, weapons, serial conduct, or organized conspiracy. The government is selecting its cases with greater care, and the defense must respond with proportional preparation.

What is required, in every instance, is an examination of the government’s evidence that begins before the indictment and continues through the final sentencing hearing. The suppression of identification evidence, the challenge to the statutory elements, the litigation of sentencing enhancements, and the presentation of mitigating circumstances at disposition are not sequential steps. They are concurrent obligations that demand attention from the earliest moment of representation.

Spodek Law Group defends clients charged under 18 U.S.C. Section 2113 in every federal district. The firm’s record in federal criminal defense reflects a commitment to preparation that matches the severity of the charge. A consultation with our attorneys is the first act of defense.