United States of America v. Thurston Sanders

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THURSTON SANDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00251-BEL-1)
Submitted: October 14, 2011 Decided: October 27, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, Staff
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Justin S. Herring, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thurston Sanders appeals his convictions for armed
bank robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence. On
appeal, he challenges the introduction of bait money registers,
asserting that admission of these documents violated the
Confrontation Clause. He also contends that an out-of-court
identification was erroneously admitted at trial. We affirm.
Sanders first asserts that bait money registers are
testimonial under the Sixth Amendment, as explained by
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), because they record
past facts and are required by law enforcement to assist in the
investigation and prosecution of bank robberies. Thus, Sanders
contends that the admissibility of the registers is governed by
the Confrontation Clause, and they are inadmissible absent
witness unavailability and a prior opportunity for
cross-examination. Id. at 68. We decline to address this
issue, as we find that any error by the district court was
harmless.
Constitutional trial errors are harmless only if the
reviewing court is “able to declare a belief that [the error]
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California,
386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). When the error involves wrongly
admitted evidence, “the impact of the error can be evaluated in
light of the other evidence which was properly admitted.”

-- 2 of 4 --

3
United States v. Blevins, 960 F.2d 1252, 1262 (4th Cir. 1992).
To determine whether the admission of the registers was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt, we review the entire trial record and
determine whether “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that
the jury would have returned [a guilty] verdict[]” even if the
evidence had not been introduced. Id. at 1263. This
determination requires a quantitative assessment of the impact
of the error measured against the other evidence presented and a
qualitative assessment of the proof as to whether the
erroneously admitted evidence was cumulative. Id. at 1262;
Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231 (1973).
We conclude that any error was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. The bait bill register was introduced to
prove that the money found in Sanders’ hotel room came from the
bank. There was overwhelming other evidence that the money in
Sanders’ room was from the robbery. Specifically, the GPS
tracker packs taken with the money from the bank were found with
the money in the hotel room. Further, the police also found
firearms (including one used in the robbery) and costume items
worn by the robber in Sanders’ hotel room. In addition, the
robber was seen leaving the bank and heading toward the hotel,
where Sanders was found alone in a room containing the above-
described evidence of the robbery.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
In his reply brief, Sanders contends that the bait
money registers might reasonably have contributed to his
convictions, especially given that the Government highlighted
the registers in closing argument. Nonetheless, we find that
there is no reasonable probability that the evidence complained
of contributed to the convictions. The GPS trackers taken from
the bank were found with the money in the hotel room, the money
was hidden in the ceiling, the amount of the money stolen was
very similar to the amount recovered, and Sanders was tracked
from the bank to the hotel room. Accordingly, we easily
conclude (and, we emphasize, without determining whether there
was error at all) that any Confrontation Clause error was
harmless.
Regarding Sanders’ identification claim, we have
reviewed the briefs and record in the case, and we find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. (See J.A. at 190-92). Based on the
foregoing, we affirm Sanders’ convictions. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --