## Facts

- The United States prosecuted Carey Gilbert Chappell, a small Black man, for robbing a SunTrust bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
- At trial, eyewitnesses described the robber as a small, dark-skinned man wearing dark clothes and a white cloth on his head that he used to cover his face, preventing a facial identification.
- Witnesses stated the robber fled the bank on a bicycle.
- The robber left no fingerprints or other physical evidence at the scene tying Chappell to the crime.
- Three fellow jail inmates testified that Chappell told them about the robbery, describing it in a way that matched the witnesses’ description of how it was carried out.
- The government also presented circumstantial evidence connecting Chappell to the robbery:
  - About a month before the robbery, Chappell asked a friend to help him rob a bank.
  - On the day of the robbery, an acquaintance encountered Chappell near the bank; Chappell was wearing black and had a white cloth on his head, and he asked whether the acquaintance wanted to “make some money.”
  - That same day, a homeowner found Chappell hiding on his property, and Chappell offered him money for a ride out of the neighborhood.
  - That afternoon, Chappell—who previously had no job, no money, and no car—bought a car for $2,500.
  - Chappell was known to wear black clothing and to travel by bicycle.
- A jury convicted Chappell of bank robbery.
- On appeal, Chappell challenged the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the robber.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Chappell was the person who committed the bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Chappell was the robber, even without physical evidence or a facial eyewitness identification.
- The court relied on the combined force of the circumstantial proof and the inmate testimony describing Chappell’s admissions in terms consistent with the robbery.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the court asks whether any reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government.
- A conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence; the government is not required to present direct evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, or an eyewitness facial identification.
- The jury, not the appellate court, decides what testimony to credit, including testimony from jail inmates reporting a defendant’s admissions.
- Evidence of conduct before and after a crime—such as statements about committing the offense, proximity to the crime scene, concealment, and sudden unexplained cash—may support a finding of identity when considered together.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Chappell’s bank-robbery conviction, concluding that the jury could reasonably identify him as the robber based on a mix of eyewitness descriptions of the robber’s appearance and bicycle escape, inmate testimony about Chappell’s admissions matching the manner of the robbery, and circumstantial evidence showing planning, proximity, post-robbery concealment, and a same-day cash car purchase despite prior lack of funds.


United States v. Chappell, 307 Fed. Appx. 275 (2009)