Court Affirms Robbery & Firearm Convictions

 US v. Caldwell: In 2016 two men (neither of them Caldwell) robbed a bank in North Carolina armed with firearms. GPS trackers embedded in the stolen cash allowed police to track them with a presence that “would have been clear to anyone in the area that the place were there and were engaged in a manhunt.” Caldwell was found hiding “amid vines and weeds along a fence” nearby on top of a “black bag containing nearly all of the missing cash as well as one of the GPS trackers.” Caldwell told police (and later testified at trial) that he had been carjacked by two men who pistol whipped him as they fled and he only regained consciousness when he was bitten by a police dog. Police also found an abandoned car and the other GPS tracker. A further search of the car uncovered a gun, a black ski mask, and other items of clothing. A second search of the trunk two weeks later led to the recovery of another gun and more clothing. Caldwell was eventually charged, and convicted at trial (where the two actual robbers testified against him), of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, bank robbery, and firearms violations.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Caldwell’s convictions and sentence, rejecting numerous arguments Caldwell raised. First, the court held that the district court had properly denied Caldwell’s motion to suppress evidence found during both searches of the bar, holding that there was probable cause to search the car and no warrant was required under the automobile exception. That the second search took place two weeks later and after the car had been impounded did not matter, so long as probable cause still existed (which it did). Second, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caldwell’s motion to disqualify the counsel representing Mitchell, one of the actual robbers and to prevent Mitchell from testifying. Mitchell was represented by a public defender from the same office as an attorney who had represented Caldwell when initially prosecuted in state court, which Caldwell argued created  conflict. A consultation with the state bar confirmed the existence of a conflict, but also a recognizing that it was within the court’s discretion to allow representation of Mitchell to continue through his testimony. In light of the “broad discretion conferred on the court” and the steps taken prior to its decision, the court held there was no abuse of discretion. Third, the court rejected Caldwell’s arguments regarding evidentiary issues. Finally, the court concluded that Caldwell’s firearm convictions were legally sufficient in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.