Background
Over approximately two weeks, Keith Bernard Miller robbed or attempted to rob four financial institutions. At each location, he gave a teller a note demanding money. Although the notes contained no express threat of violence—and sometimes used polite language—Miller also engaged in conduct such as staring at tellers, commenting when one reached for an alarm, repeatedly directing a teller to follow protocol, and reaching behind himself in a way that caused a teller to fear he might have a weapon.
Miller obtained money from two institutions and left the other two empty-handed. A jury convicted him of two counts of attempted credit-union robbery by intimidation, one count of credit-union robbery by intimidation, and one count of bank robbery by intimidation under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The district court denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal, and Miller appealed both the initial judgment and an amended judgment imposing restitution.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all four convictions. It held that, in the context of a suspected bank robbery, a person’s verbal or written demand for cash from a teller—whether threatening or polite—provides sufficient evidentiary grounds for a jury to find intimidation under § 2113(a). Such a demand carries an implicit threat that harm may follow if the teller does not comply.
The court emphasized that intimidation is judged objectively: the question is whether an ordinary person in the teller’s position reasonably could infer a threat of bodily harm. The government need not prove an express threat, display of a weapon, use of force, or a teller’s actual subjective fear. Because Miller presented a demand note at every institution, the evidence was sufficient on that basis alone to sustain the intimidation findings and the denial of his Rule 29 motion.
Key Takeaways
- A demand for a bank’s money inherently may communicate an implicit “or else” and support a jury’s finding of intimidation under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
- Polite wording, an absence of weapons, and a lack of express threats do not prevent conduct from qualifying as intimidation.
- The inquiry is objective, although evidence of a teller’s actual reaction may inform whether an ordinary teller reasonably could perceive a threat of bodily harm.
- For attempted bank robbery, the government must prove the defendant’s specific intent to commit robbery by force, violence, or intimidation, as well as a substantial step toward the offense.
Why It Matters
The published decision adopts a clear rule for Eleventh Circuit bank-robbery prosecutions: presenting a teller with a demand for cash is itself sufficient evidence from which a jury may find intimidation. Prosecutors therefore need not establish threatening language or additional menacing behavior when the defendant directly demands bank funds.
The decision also narrows the practical reach of defenses based on a robber’s politeness or a teller’s composure. At the same time, the court distinguished thefts involving no demand or contact with bank personnel and attempted-robbery cases containing no explicit or implicit threat.