April 18, 2018
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:15-cr-00015-1 -
Charles R. Norgle, Judge.
Wood, Chief Judge, and Flaum and Easterbrook, Circuit Judges.
Alvin Edge- worth was convicted of bank robbery and
brandishing a fire- arm. Edgeworth seeks a new trial,
asserting the district court erred by: (1) denying his motion
to suppress and failing to grant an evidentiary hearing
relating to his motion to sup- press; (2) conducting a flawed
jury selection process and declining to excuse a juror; and
(3) applying a two-level enhancement for taking a financial
institution's property. We affirm.
January 9, 2015, Belmont Bank & Trust, located on Wacker
Drive in Chicago, was robbed. The robber wore a yellow
construction helmet, reflective vest, and a neck warmer
wrapped around his face and neck. The robber approached a
teller, held a firearm so the teller could see it, and
demanded money. The teller gave the robber approximately $3,
000 and included a GPS tracking device in the cash bundles.
the robber left, the teller called 911 and a manager pushed
the bank alarm. Law enforcement responded and within ten
minutes, a person matching the teller's description was
located running south on State Street. The pursuit led to an
underground train platform where the individual at- tempted
to flee via the train tracks. The police apprehended the
individual, returned him to the platform, and performed a
search. They found the bank's stolen money, the GPS
tracker, and the construction outfit that matched the
teller's description. They also recovered a loaded
revolver from his waist- band. The individual identified
himself as Alvin Edgeworth, the defendant. Police transported
Edgeworth to a FBI facility for processing, where he provided
a video-recorded post-arrest statement.
to trial, Edgeworth filed a motion to suppress statements
from his interrogation and requested an evidentiary hearing.
Edgeworth's motion to suppress contained three
allegations: (1) "that police officers physically
assaulted him once he was placed in custody"; (2)
"that officers physically coerced him into making
statements the government intends to use in its case in
chief"; and (3) "that officers made statements that
made him believe that if he would not cooperate with law
enforcement, he would be sent to prison for a long
time." The district court denied Edgeworth's motion,
holding he did not allege sufficient facts to make out a
"prima facie showing of illegality."
proceeded to trial in January 2017. During voir dire, one
potential juror indicated she needed to return to college
later that week. The judge did not follow up on her
statement. Nevertheless, along with eleven others, she was
seated on the jury. An alternate was also chosen.
the government's case in chief, the college-bound juror
presented a note to the district court which read, in
Hello. My name is . When being interviewed on Tuesday I
said that I am leaving to return to school tomorrow,
Thursday, January 12th, to at- tend a mandatory orientation
for a class Friday. Tomorrow is the only day my parents were
able to take off work this week to take me. I do wish I had
another option. Judge Norgle continued with another unrelated
question when I mentioned I needed to go back Thursday.
Therefore I did not want to question him, and I assumed he
heard me. When I was chosen, I thought that was because he
believed it would be over by the end of the day. I apologize
for any inconvenience this causes, and I do wish I could be
here tomorrow. Due to the inflexible above circumstances, I
will not be able to attend tomorrow.
court asked the parties whether they believed the juror
should remain on the jury. The government stated the juror
should remain for the rest of the trial. Defense counsel
stated: "I'm in agreement with the government, your
Honor. I think she should stay." As a result, the
district court advised the juror that "[y]ou are to
remain on this jury and be here on time tomorrow morning at
deliberations began the next day. The jury convicted
Edgeworth of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a) and brandishing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Edgeworth filed a post-trial motion