United States v. Lynette Burnette, United States of America v. Theresa Burnette, United States of America v. Michael Curtis Burnette

On October 24, 1980, the University Branch of Home Federal Savings & Loan Association [hereinafter “Savings & Loan”] in Tucson, Arizona, was robbed. Subsequently, Michael Burnette, Lynette Burnette, and Theresa Burnette were arrested. Michael was charged with armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (d). 1 Lynette was charged with aiding and abetting armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Theresa was charged as an accessory after the fact to armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 . After a jury trial, 2 all three were found guilty as charged. Each appeals from his or her conviction. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the convictions of Michael and Theresa but reverse that of Lynette.

I. FACTS

On the afternoon of October 24,1980, the Savings & Loan 3 was robbed by a lone black gunman. The robber took $5,049, including numerous “bait bills” with previously recorded serial numbers. Removal of these “bait bills” also automatically triggered a surveillance camera in the Savings & Loan which photographed the gunman during the commission of the robbery.

The robber was described by various bank employees and customers as being a slim black male…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur fully with the majority’s affirmance of the convictions of Michael and Theresa. I also agree that Lynette’s conviction for armed robbery must be reversed on grounds of faulty jury instructions. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence of the contents of Lynette’s purse discovered during the search at the police station was admissible at her trial.

*1053 The district court admitted the evidence seized from Lynette’s purse on the basis of its finding that Lynette had abandoned her privacy interest in her purse by stating to the arresting officer that she had “just found” it. The relevant question presented by Lynette’s appeal, therefore, was whether the district court had erred in finding that this conduct constituted abandonment. I agree with the majority that there was no abandonment of the purse, and that the evidence seized from it cannot be admitted on this basis.

The majority goes on, however, to find the evidence admissible on a totally different ground. As I understand the majority’s theory, it is that the police not only seized Lynette’s purse at the time of her arrest, but conducted such an…

698 F.2d 1038 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 898 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lynette BURNETTE, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theresa BURNETTE, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Curtis BURNETTE, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 81-1153 to 81-1155. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 6, 1982. Decided Feb. 10, 1983. Frank W. Frey, Tucson, Ariz., for Lynette B. Donn Alpert, Tucson, Ariz., for Theresa B. Frank R. Zapata, Tucson, Ariz., for Michael B. John G. Hawkins, Rhonda L. Repp, Asst. U.S. Attys., Tucson, Ariz., for U.S. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before ELY and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, * District Judge. ELY, Circuit Judge: 1 On October 24, 1980, the University Branch of Home Federal Savings & Loan Association [hereinafter "Savings & Loan"] in Tucson, Arizona, was robbed. Subsequently, Michael Burnette, Lynette Burnette, and Theresa Burnette were arrested. Michael was charged with armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (d). 1 Lynette was charged with aiding and abetting armed…