Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Circuit split · criminal law

Whether the first paragraph of the federal bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), requires proof of specific intent to steal or is only a general-intent crime

1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.

  1. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · April 28, 2004

    “While we acknowledge creating a circuit split, and do so hesitatingly, we trust that the prospective impact of the split will be minimal to non-existent because the availability of the second paragraph of Section 2113(a) would allow for a conviction under the facts presented here.” — Creates a split
    Empirical analysis of this case →

The provision at issue

18 U.S.C. § 2113 — Bank robbery and incidental crimes
“(a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, or obtains or attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association; or Whoever enters or attempts to enter any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, or any building used in whole or in part as a bank, credit union, or as a savings and loan …”
Read the full section →

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

  • On the other side · 2d Cir.United States v. Jackson560 F.2d 112
    “Whether the Second Circuit panel in Jackson misapplied Stallworth, the Jackson panel did explicitly reject the idea that attempted intimidation was insufficient.” — United States v. Bellew, acknowledging the split
  • On the other side · 4th Cir.United States v. McFadden739 F.2d 149
  • Discussed · 2d Cir.United States v. Stallworth543 F.2d 1038
    “In Stallworth, the court called similar logic “wooden,” though that characterization was apparently in the context of the second paragraph of Section 2113(a).” — United States v. Bellew, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.