United States v. Jackson

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977 · Criminal Law

560 F.2d 112 (1977)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawattemptsubstantial stepattempted bank robberymere preparationreconnoiteringpossession of criminal paraphernaliaModel Penal Code

Facts

The defendants agreed to rob a Brooklyn bank by entering with the manager early Monday morning and taking the weekend deposits, using a car, loaded sawed-off shotguns, a revolver, masks, gloves, and handcuffs. On June 14 they drove to the bank armed, inspected conditions, sought and added another accomplice, disguised the car's license plate, and twice reconnoitered the bank, but postponed the robbery because conditions seemed unfavorable. After an accomplice informed the FBI, the defendants returned on June 21 in the described car with weapons and robbery tools, circled and parked near the bank, sent one man to observe the entrance area, and continued surveillance-like movements until they detected FBI agents and were arrested. A partially open suitcase in the car exposed loaded sawed-off shotguns, a toy revolver, handcuffs, and masks.

Issue

Whether the defendants' conduct on June 14 and June 21 crossed the line from mere preparation to criminal attempt under the federal bank robbery statute. More specifically, the question was whether their actions constituted substantial steps strongly corroborative of firm intent to commit bank robbery.

Rule

A federal criminal attempt requires two elements: first, the defendant must act with the culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime; second, the defendant must engage in conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the crime, and that step must be strongly corroborative of the firmness of the defendant's criminal intent. Under the approach approved in Stallworth and drawn from Mandujano and the Model Penal Code, reconnoitering the place of the crime and possessing materials specially designed for the crime or serving no lawful purpose under the circumstances may each be sufficient as a matter of law if strongly corroborative of criminal purpose.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Newark, Maya Torres and Devin Cole agree to rob a neighborhood credit union when it opens on Monday morning. They drive to the branch with two loaded short-barreled shotguns, zip ties, knit face coverings, and a fake rear license plate, circle the block twice, and send Devin to stand near the entrance and watch employee arrivals before leaving because too many customers are already inside.

If charged with attempted bank robbery under the federal substantial-step standard described by the majority, which is the strongest argument for conviction?

Explanation. The majority adopted a two-part test: culpability for the target offense plus a substantial step strongly corroborative of firm criminal intent. Reconnoitering the place contemplated for the crime and possessing specially designed materials or materials serving no lawful purpose under the circumstances at or near the scene may each suffice if strongly corroborative. No entry, brandishing, or last proximate act is required.