In a landmark verdict today, a Superior Court jury found Mark Stubblefield, a 65-year-old resident of Washington, D.C., guilty on all counts for the armed robbery of a Truist Bank branch in Dupont Circle. Stubblefield had threatened the bank tellers with a bomb, instilling fear and demanding a significant sum of money. The jury convicted him of one count of armed robbery and one count of felony threats. Sentencing is scheduled for October 17, 2023. The prosecution presented compelling evidence, including surveillance footage that captured the defendant’s face and DNA evidence linking him to the crime. U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves and Acting Chief Pamela Smith commended the police officers, detectives, and agents involved in the investigation, as well as the prosecution team for their diligent work on the case.
Details of the Case
In a recent trial, Mark Stubblefield, a 65-year-old resident of Washington, D.C., was found guilty on all counts for robbing and threatening to blow up a branch of Truist Bank located at Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. The verdicts were announced by U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves and Acting Chief Pamela Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Charges against the Defendant
Stubblefield was found guilty of one count of robbery while armed and one count of felony threats. These charges were a result of his actions during the robbery at the Truist Bank branch.
Scheduled Sentencing Hearing
Following the guilty verdict, a sentencing hearing has been scheduled for October 17, 2023. During this hearing, the court will determine the appropriate penalties for Stubblefield’s crimes.
Description of the Robbery
On October 20, 2022, at approximately 2:35 p.m., Stubblefield disguised himself and entered the Truist Bank located at 1369 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Inside the bank, he proceeded to threaten the bank tellers with a bomb, instilling fear in their lives. Stubblefield demanded a large sum of cash, resulting in the tellers handing over $10,000. After obtaining the money, Stubblefield left the bank and walked south on Connecticut Avenue.
Escape and Evading Police
To avoid capture, Stubblefield carefully planned his escape. He boarded a Metrobus and changed his disguise to a D.C. Department of Transportation uniform. This strategic evasion tactic allowed him to evade the police and successfully flee the scene on the day of the robbery.
During the trial, the government presented surveillance footage from nearby businesses and the Metrobus. The Metrobus surveillance footage provided a clear facial capture of Stubblefield, which was instrumental in identifying the suspect. Both the FBI and the Metropolitan Police Department used this footage to locate witnesses who later identified Stubblefield as the bank robber.
Witness testimony played a crucial role in identifying Stubblefield as the perpetrator of the robbery. The witnesses, cooperating with law enforcement, provided detailed accounts of the incident and positively identified Stubblefield as the bank robber. Their testimony was instrumental in linking the defendant to the crime.
In addition to witness testimony and surveillance footage, the government also presented DNA evidence linking Stubblefield to the robbery. The collection and analysis process for this evidence was meticulous, ensuring its reliability and accuracy. The strength of this DNA evidence further supported the guilty verdict rendered by the jury.
Recognition of Investigative Team
U.S. Attorney Graves and Chief Smith commended the officers and detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department who diligently investigated the case. They also expressed gratitude towards the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Laboratory for their valuable assistance in the investigation process. Additionally, the U.S. Attorney’s Office recognized the contributions of Special Agent Sean Ricardi, Supervisory Litigation Technology Specialist Leif Hickling, Litigation Technology Specialist Charlie Bruce, and Paralegal Specialists Debra McPherson and Antoinette Sakamsa. AUSAs Paul Courtney and Jessica Ans also provided valuable support in the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Carlos A. Valdivia and Alec Levy successfully prosecuted the case against Stubblefield. Their diligent efforts and legal expertise contributed to the jury’s guilty verdict.
Introduction of the Defendant
Mark Stubblefield, a resident of Washington, D.C., was the defendant in this bank robbery case. At the time of the crime, he was 65 years old.
Location and Bank Details
The robbery took place at a branch of Truist Bank located at Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. The specific address was 1369 Connecticut Avenue, NW.
Law Enforcement Agencies Involved
Several law enforcement agencies were involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) played a crucial role in the initial investigation, while the FBI’s Washington Field Office and Laboratory provided valuable support to the case.
Significance of the Case
This bank robbery case was significant due to the severity of the crimes committed by Stubblefield. His actions not only put the bank employees in fear for their lives but also disrupted the sense of security within the community. The successful prosecution of this case sends a strong message that such criminal activities will not be tolerated and that law enforcement agencies will work diligently to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Key Events and Timeline
Date and Time of the Robbery
The robbery occurred on October 20, 2022, at approximately 2:35 p.m.
Defendant’s Actions Inside the Bank
Upon entering the Truist Bank branch, Stubblefield disguised himself and proceeded to threaten the bank tellers with a bomb. This action instilled fear in the tellers, compelling them to comply with his demands for a large sum of cash.
After successfully obtaining $10,000 in cash, Stubblefield left the bank and walked south on Connecticut Avenue. He then boarded a Metrobus and changed his disguise to a D.C. Department of Transportation uniform, effectively eluding immediate capture.
Investigation and Identification Process
Law enforcement agencies conducted an extensive investigation following the robbery. This investigation involved reviewing surveillance footage from nearby businesses as well as the Metrobus. The facial capture of Stubblefield in the Metrobus footage played a crucial role in identifying him as the suspect.
Arrest and Trial Proceedings
As a result of the investigation and the identification of the suspect, Stubblefield was eventually arrested and brought to trial. The trial proceedings led to the guilty verdict on all charges, marking an important milestone in the pursuit of justice for the bank robbery.
Charges and Verdict
Robbery While Armed
Stubblefield was found guilty of one count of robbery while armed. His actions during the bank robbery, wherein he threatened bank tellers while armed, supported this charge.
In addition to the robbery charge, Stubblefield was also found guilty of one count of felony threats. His threats to blow up the bank tellers added to the severity of his crimes.
Explanation of Guilty Verdict
The guilty verdict on all counts was reached by the jury based on the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution. The witness testimony, surveillance footage, and DNA evidence collectively corroborated Stubblefield’s involvement in the robbery.
The scheduled sentencing hearing on October 17, 2023, will determine the appropriate penalties for Stubblefield’s crimes. Depending on the severity and circumstances of the offenses, he may face significant imprisonment and fines.
Description of the Robbery
Stubblefield entered the Truist Bank branch disguised to avoid immediate identification. This disguise aimed to conceal his true identity and facilitated his ability to commit the robbery.
Threats to the Bank Tellers
Using a bomb threat, Stubblefield instilled fear in the bank tellers, compelling their compliance and cooperation. This tactic was an integral part of his plan to successfully rob the bank.
Fear and Response of the Tellers
The bank tellers experienced significant fear for their lives due to Stubblefield’s bomb threat. Given the gravity of the situation, they understandably complied with his demands for a large sum of cash, prioritizing their safety and the safety of others in the bank.
Amount of Cash Stolen
During the robbery, Stubblefield successfully obtained $10,000 in cash from the bank. This substantial amount of money was the result of his threats and demands.
Escape and Police Pursuit
Defendant’s Escape Route
Stubblefield’s escape route was carefully planned and executed to avoid immediate capture. After leaving the bank, he walked south on Connecticut Avenue before boarding a Metrobus. This strategic decision allowed him to distance himself from the crime scene.
Disguise Change and Evasion Tactics
To further complicate identification, Stubblefield changed his disguise from the one he wore during the robbery to a D.C. Department of Transportation uniform. This change, along with other evasion tactics, helped him elude the police in the immediate aftermath of the robbery.
Lack of Capture on the Day of the Robbery
Despite efforts by law enforcement agencies, Stubblefield managed to escape capture on the day of the robbery. His careful planning and execution of evasion tactics allowed him to evade immediate apprehension.
Surveillance Footage and Identification
Evidence from Nearby Businesses
Surveillance footage obtained from nearby businesses played a crucial role in the investigation. This footage provided additional evidence and context for Stubblefield’s actions during the robbery.
Metrobus Surveillance Footage
The Metrobus surveillance footage proved to be a key piece of evidence in identifying Stubblefield as the bank robber. The clear facial capture of the defendant facilitated the subsequent identification process.
Clear Facial Capture of the Defendant
The Metrobus surveillance footage captured Stubblefield’s face with remarkable clarity. This visual evidence provided a definitive link between the defendant and the crime scene, aiding in his identification and subsequent arrest.
Use of Footage in Witness Identification
Law enforcement agencies used the surveillance footage, particularly the clear facial capture, to locate witnesses who could identify Stubblefield as the bank robber. The footage served as a crucial reference, enabling witnesses to positively identify the defendant, further supporting the prosecution’s case.
Identification of the Bank Robber
Several witnesses came forward and cooperated with law enforcement to provide testimony regarding the bank robbery. These witnesses positively identified Stubblefield as the perpetrator based on their recollection of the events and any interactions they had with the suspect.
Cooperation with Law Enforcement
Witnesses played an essential role in assisting law enforcement agencies in the investigation. Their cooperation and willingness to provide detailed accounts of the incident helped ensure a comprehensive understanding of the events surrounding the bank robbery.
Relevance and Impact of Witness Testimony
Witness testimony served as critical evidence in establishing Stubblefield’s guilt. Their accounts corroborated other pieces of evidence, consolidating the case against the defendant. The witness testimony, alongside surveillance footage and DNA evidence, contributed to the jury’s guilty verdict.
DNA Evidence and Forensic Analysis
Linking the Defendant to the Crime
DNA evidence played a pivotal role in linking Stubblefield to the bank robbery. The analysis of DNA samples collected from the crime scene matched Stubblefield’s DNA profile, providing irrefutable evidence of his involvement.
Collection and Analysis Process
Law enforcement agencies followed rigorous procedures in collecting DNA evidence from the crime scene. Forensic analysis of the collected samples was conducted meticulously to ensure accuracy and reliability.
Strength of the DNA Evidence
The DNA evidence presented during the trial was robust and highly persuasive. The match between Stubblefield’s DNA profile and the samples collected at the crime scene provided a compelling link that further supported the guilty verdict against him.
The conviction of Mark Stubblefield for the bank robbery at Truist Bank stands as a testament to the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system in bringing criminals to justice. The guilty verdict on all charges, supported by witness testimony, surveillance footage, and DNA evidence, underscores the thoroughness of the investigation and the strength of the prosecution’s case. As the sentencing hearing approaches, it is anticipated that Stubblefield will face severe penalties for his crimes, emphasizing the commitment to safety and security within the District of Columbia.