United States v. Jackson

United States Court of Appeals (1977)

Defendant: Jackson and two co-conspirators; the defendants planned to rob a bank on June 14 and June 21. On June 14, they went to the bank all prepared with weapons, masks, hand cuffs, etc., but did not commit the robbery because they perceived the situation on that day to be dangerous. Then they went to rob the bank on June 21st and before even getting out of their car, they were arrested by FBI officers. The defendants were convicted with one count of conspiracy and two counts of attempted robbery. Now the defendants appeal and argue that their actions did not meet the standards for an attempted robbery and their actions were mere preparation for robbery which are not punishable.

Issue: Did the actions of the defendants meet the standards of an attempted robbery?

Holding: Yes

Legal Reasoning: The court used the theory that in order to have an attempt, the defendants must take a substantial step towards the commission of the crime with the intent to commit the crime. The court used United States v. Stallworth to argue that a substantial step does not have to be the 'last proximate act' and it ruled that what the defendants did in the current case was enough of a substantial step to hold them liable for attempted robbery. The court affirmed the conviction.

BACK