United States v. Luna

21 F.3d 874 (1994)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Luna

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
21 F.3d 874 (1994)

  • Written by Arlyn Katen, JD

Facts

A federal jury convicted Richard Piña and Robert Torres (defendants) of robbing two banks in Fresno, California in March 1992. At the same trial, David Luna (defendant) was convicted of one of the bank robberies. The district court admitted other-act evidence of two bank robberies that Luna and Piña allegedly committed together in Oregon in April 1992, reasoning that it was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as proof of the Fresno bank robbers’ identities. All four robberies involved armed men wearing masks, gloves, sweatpants, and sweatshirts. All four robberies began between 10:30 and 11:30 a.m. with robbers noisily entering a bank, taking control of the crowd, cursing at tellers, and striking at least one bank employee. In all four robberies, at least one robber jumped over the front counter, took money from at least one teller’s drawer, and put the money into bags. All four robberies involved a getaway vehicle. But as trial evidence developed, it became clear that the government had misrepresented other similarities of the four robberies in its pretrial motion. For example, first, the government initially portrayed the four robberies as two-person jobs with clear, consistent roles for each robber. However, at trial, no consistent roles existed, and one of the robberies involved three robbers. Second, the robbers apparently did not wear the same hats, masks, gloves, or other clothes in all four robberies. Third, one getaway car was Piña’s girlfriend’s car, but the other three getaway cars appeared to be stolen. Luna, Piña, and Torres appealed from their convictions. Luna and Piña argued in relevant part that the trial court had erred by admitting the Oregon robberies as proof of the Fresno bank robbers’ identities.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership