## Facts

- Four masked, armed men wearing blue coveralls robbed a bank in Victorville, California, ordered occupants to the floor, forced employees to open the vault, and took $331,951.
- Police were alerted during the robbery and pursued the getaway van; during a high-speed chase, shots were fired at pursuing officers.
- The van stopped at a K-Mart parking lot, where the suspects split into two cars: a Camaro and a Camry, which fled in different directions.
- The Camaro stalled; Gary Edward Alexander and Jonathan Harrington were arrested inside.
- The Camry’s occupants fled on foot; Willie James Harris and Anthony F. Hicks were arrested nearby.
- Before trial, Hicks sought to exclude impeachment evidence of prior felony convictions (residential robbery and possession of rock cocaine for sale); the court ruled the convictions would be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) if he testified.
- Hicks testified, presenting an alibi and claiming he ran from police because of outstanding traffic warrants.
- A joint trial resulted in convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery (18 U.S.C. § 371), armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d)), and using a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated by (a) declining to strike for cause two prospective jurors previously victimized by robbery and (b) substituting an alternate juror on the last day of trial due to a juror’s family medical emergency.
2. Whether admission of an FDIC “Certificate of Proof of Insured Status” was erroneous to prove the bank’s federally insured status for the bank robbery charge.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing impeachment of Hicks with prior felony convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1).
4. Whether the evidence was insufficient to identify Alexander as a robber, requiring acquittal under Rule 29.
5. Whether sentencing enhancements, including the U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(1) financial-institution enhancement, violated due process or constituted impermissible double counting, and whether Harrington was entitled to acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed all convictions and all sentences.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s voir dire rulings and no prejudice from substituting an alternate juror for good cause.
- The FDIC insurance certificate was properly admitted to establish insured status.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Hicks’s prior convictions for impeachment after balancing probative value against prejudice under Rule 609(a)(1).
- The evidence, including Alexander’s arrest in the fleeing Camaro immediately after the robbery, was sufficient for a rational jury to find identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The challenged Guideline enhancements were valid and not unconstitutional double counting; Harrington was properly denied an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have substantial discretion in assessing juror impartiality during voir dire; prior victimization alone does not require removal for cause where the court finds the juror can be fair.
- A district court may substitute an alternate juror for good cause during trial; reversal requires a showing of prejudice from the substitution.
- The federally insured status element of bank robbery may be proven through admissible documentary evidence such as an FDIC certificate, consistent with evidentiary rules for authenticated public records.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), prior felony convictions may be admitted to impeach a testifying defendant when the probative value on credibility outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- Sufficiency challenges are reviewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution; conviction stands if any rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Multiple Guideline enhancements may apply when they address distinct offense characteristics; application is not unconstitutional merely because enhancements increase punishment based on different sentencing factors.
- Acceptance-of-responsibility reductions are generally unavailable when a defendant proceeds to trial contesting factual guilt absent unusual circumstances; the district court’s determination is reviewed deferentially.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the defendants’ convictions arising from an armed bank robbery and flight, ruling that the jury-selection and substitution decisions were within the trial court’s discretion, insured status was properly proven by an FDIC certificate, impeachment of a testifying defendant with prior felonies complied with Rule 609, the evidence sufficiently identified Alexander, and the sentencing enhancements and denial of acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment were lawful.


United States v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1995)