David Simmons was convicted of armed bank robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence for his role in a bank robbery in Normal, Illinois, on September 14, 2007, where approximately $5,862 was stolen. During the robbery, two armed men entered the bank, one threatening patrons while the other demanded money from tellers. Both wore disguises that obscured their identities. After the robbery, Simmons was apprehended by police while attempting to flee the scene. Officers found a loaded Glock handgun and clothing items near his location, including a pair of gloves that matched those worn by one of the robbers in surveillance footage.
Despite the absence of eyewitness identification linking Simmons directly to the robbery, the government presented his police interrogation statements, where he described his involvement and actions during the crime. His defense contested the admissibility of evidence concerning the gloves found with him, arguing against Detective Merica's testimony that linked them to those seen in the surveillance footage. This evidence and testimony form the basis for Simmons' appeal against his conviction.
Merica conducted an interview of Simmons at the police station, during which he observed gloves in Simmons’ possession. Simmons contended that Merica's testimony regarding the gloves encroached upon the jury's role by opining on their similarity to gloves shown in bank photos. The district court allowed this testimony as lay opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, which permits such opinions if they are rationally based on the witness's perception, helpful to understanding the testimony or determining a fact in issue, and not reliant on specialized knowledge. The government sought to admit the gloves into evidence, which the court granted despite Simmons arguing that the chain of custody was inadequate. The government acknowledged a gap in this chain, as Merica had asked Detective Underwood to collect Simmons’ clothing but did not personally collect the gloves. Underwood confirmed he did not collect gloves, while Detective Acuncius received the clothing bag from Underwood and photographed its contents, noting the Under Armour gloves matched the ones in the photographs, including a distinct cocklebur. Simmons maintained that there was no evidence linking the gloves in the bag to those obtained from him. Although the district court recognized the chain of custody gap, it admitted the evidence, referencing precedents indicating that such gaps affect the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, provided there is no evidence of tampering. Ultimately, any potential error in admitting the gloves or testimony was deemed harmless due to Simmons’ own trial testimony, which confirmed his possession of the gloves used in the robbery. He claimed he was not one of the robbers but knew the perpetrators, who had borrowed his car and used his gloves during the crime before discarding them.
Simmons retrieved gloves from a wooded area, fearing his DNA would link him to a crime, but left a gun behind. He ran upon being spotted by police, intending to protect the identity of the actual perpetrator. Arrested before reaching his grandmother’s house, Simmons confirmed the gloves in his possession were used in the bank robbery. He could not contest Merica’s testimony connecting the gloves to the robbery, as he admitted they matched those in the bank photo. Simmons urged the jury to determine if someone else used the gloves during the robbery. The court found that the admission of the gloves and Merica’s testimony did not adversely affect the case, as they supported Simmons’ own narrative. The district court's decision was affirmed, indicating a clear instance of harmless error.
