## Facts

- Omar Mohammed and Curtis Dwayne Frazier robbed a Bank of America branch in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on February 27, 2003, taking $29,415.40 and fleeing in a gold Acura.
- A witness saw the Acura begin moving as the robbers entered, suggesting a possible third person driving.
- The Acura had been stolen four days earlier and was found shortly after the robbery at the Vista Montano Apartments near the bank.
- Vista Montano Apartments adjoined the Pinnacle View Apartments.
- Shortly before the robbery, the Pinnacle View manager saw three individuals enter the complex after parking the Acura outside the main gate; maintenance workers followed them.
- The maintenance workers observed the individuals enter Apartment 2013 carrying a black bag.
- Apartment 2013 was leased to Adrienne McCastle; Marvin Thomas was her boyfriend and associated with the apartment, though not on the lease.
- Mohammed and Frazier pleaded guilty to bank robbery; Gene Alan Summers and Thomas were tried and convicted of bank robbery and aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2) and conspiracy to commit bank robbery (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2113(a)).
- The case against Summers was circumstantial, relying on an inference that he participated as a driver or co-conspirator; there was no direct proof he drove the Acura or took part in planning or execution.
- At trial, the government introduced a statement attributed to Mohammed during police contact after a stop: “How did you guys find us so fast?” used against Thomas.
- Both Summers and Thomas argued the government failed to disclose allegedly exculpatory material before trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Summers committed bank robbery (including aiding and abetting) and joined a conspiracy to rob the bank.
2. Whether admitting Mohammed’s statement (“How did you guys find us so fast?”) against Thomas violated the Sixth Amendment under Crawford because it was testimonial and Thomas had no chance to cross-examine Mohammed.
3. Whether any nondisclosure of favorable evidence required reversal under Brady due to suppression and material prejudice.

## Decision

- The court reversed Summers’s convictions, holding the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict.
- The court held Mohammed’s statement was testimonial hearsay whose admission was error under Crawford, but it affirmed Thomas’s convictions because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given other evidence.
- The court rejected both defendants’ Brady arguments, finding no suppression of material favorable evidence that created a reasonable probability of a different result.

## Legal Principles

- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; verdicts may not rest on speculation or a stacked chain of unsupported inferences.
- Conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting convictions require proof of knowing participation; mere association with wrongdoers or proximity to incriminating circumstances does not, without more, establish guilt.
- Under Crawford, testimonial statements by a non-testifying declarant are inadmissible against a defendant unless the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination and the declarant is unavailable.
- Confrontation Clause violations are subject to harmless-error analysis; an erroneous admission may be affirmed if it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the remaining evidence.
- Brady requires disclosure of favorable evidence; relief depends on suppression and materiality, meaning a reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the outcome.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit set aside Summers’s bank-robbery and conspiracy convictions because the government’s proof required impermissible speculation, while it upheld Thomas’s convictions because the Crawford violation from admitting a co-robber’s testimonial statement was harmless and the asserted Brady nondisclosures were not materially prejudicial.


United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2005)