When most people think of robbery, they imagine physical violence or threats involving weapons. However, under federal law, robbery does not always require direct force. Intimidation alone, subtle, non-violent, yet psychologically powerful, can result in severe federal robbery charges. This is especially true in bank robbery cases, where courts often find that fear, rather than physical contact, is enough to support a conviction.

Understanding how intimidation is interpreted under federal statutes is critical for defendants and their attorneys. A single misinterpreted gesture or phrase can result in a charge that carries decades in prison. In this article, we explore how intimidation works in federal robbery cases and the most effective ways to defend against such allegations.

What Constitutes Intimidation Under Federal Law?

Federal courts define intimidation as actions or words that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm. This “reasonable person” standard is objective, meaning it doesn't matter whether the specific victim actually felt scared—what matters is whether an ordinary person would have.

Objective Standard: The Reasonable Person Test

In United States v. McCranie, the court reaffirmed that intimidation hinges on how an average person would interpret the defendant's behavior. Even if a bank teller remains calm, if the defendant's actions would make a typical person fear for their safety, that satisfies the requirement for intimidation.

This approach is similar to how California courts analyze threat-based crimes. In fact, determining whether behavior objectively instills fear is also central to how courts assess the difference between first and second degree robbery in California, especially when evaluating the role of force or fear during the commission of the offense.

No Need for Explicit Threats

Intimidation does not require the use of explicit threats or physical aggression. Courts have upheld robbery convictions based on body language, tone of voice, and subtle suggestions.

For instance, in United States v. Thornton, the court emphasized that even a threatening posture or ambiguous statements like "no one gets hurt if you cooperate" can support a conviction.

• Placing a hand in a pocket to suggest a concealed weapon
• Passing a note demanding money with urgent language
• Maintaining intense eye contact or stern facial expressions
• Wearing dark sunglasses and a hoodie indoors

Bank Robbery and the Role of Intimidation

The most common context for intimidation-based robbery charges is bank robbery. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2113, taking money from a bank "by force and violence, or by intimidation" is a federal crime, even if no one is touched or physically threatened.

The "Note-Job" Bank Robbery

Courts have consistently held that silently passing a note to a teller demanding cash qualifies as intimidation. In United States v. Gipson, the defendant wore sunglasses, kept his hand in his pocket, and handed over a note that simply read “This is a robbery.” The court upheld his conviction, emphasizing that these actions would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm.

Context matters greatly in bank environments, where tellers are trained to comply to avoid escalating risk. The courts interpret such settings as inherently vulnerable, meaning even subtle pressure can amount to intimidation.

Implied Threats and Federal Contextual Factors

Prosecutors often emphasize the combination of physical presence, verbal cues, and the institutional setting to establish intimidation. Common contextual elements used in federal cases include:

• Urgent or stern tone when demanding money
• Standing too close to employees
• Concealing one's identity with hats or sunglasses
• Gesturing as if armed
• Ambiguous language suggesting a threat

This approach mirrors concerns found in state-level sentencing discussions about excessive punishment for lower-level robbery offenses. The need for proportionality in how we handle robbery sentencing in California has become an increasingly debated issue.

Robbery and Intimidation in Military Justice

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) also criminalizes robbery committed through intimidation under Article 122. Like federal civilian courts, military courts recognize that fear-based coercion is as serious as physical violence. Robbery charges under military law carry severe penalties, and convictions may affect rank, pay, and discharge status.

This parallel treatment shows that intimidation is viewed across multiple jurisdictions as a legitimate and prosecutable form of robbery conduct. For service members facing accusations under the UCMJ, understanding robbery charges under military law is vital to mounting an effective defense.

Defending Against Intimidation-Based Robbery Charges

Although the prosecution's burden of proof for intimidation is lower than for violent robbery, it is still possible to mount a successful defense.

1. Challenging the Reasonableness of Fear

The most effective defense often targets the “reasonable person” standard. Your attorney may argue that the defendant's behavior was not objectively intimidating, even if the victim claimed to feel scared. For example, a simple handwritten note without threats or weapons may not meet the threshold.

2. Disproving Criminal Intent

Robbery charges require that the defendant intentionally caused fear to obtain property. If the defendant's actions were misunderstood, or if there is another plausible explanation (e.g., medical hand gestures, cultural misunderstandings), this could undermine the intent element.

3. Fear vs. Discomfort

The law differentiates between fear of bodily harm and general discomfort. Being nervous or annoyed does not rise to the legal standard of intimidation. Defense attorneys can use this distinction in cases where the alleged intimidation was based on subjective feelings.

Key Federal Cases Shaping Intimidation Doctrine

• United States v. McCranie: Established that a conviction can stand even if the victim did not feel scared, as long as a reasonable person would have.
• United States v. Thornton: Clarified that physical gestures and appearance can create intimidation without verbal threats.
• United States v. Gipson: Affirmed that minimal conduct in the context of a bank robbery—such as passing a note and concealing one's hands—can suffice.

Why Understanding Intimidation Matters for Your Defense

Recognizing how federal courts define and evaluate intimidation can shape the entire defense strategy. From pre-trial motions to sentencing arguments, attorneys who understand the nuance of fear-based allegations have a better chance of obtaining reduced charges or acquittals.

Because intimidation is judged from the perspective of a reasonable person, even small details—such as body language, eye contact, or tone—can have major legal consequences.

Federal Robbery and Intimidation Defense Lawyers in California

If you or a loved one is facing federal robbery charges involving allegations of intimidation, the consequences can be severe. These charges often rely on subtle conduct interpreted through an objective legal lens. At Bulldog Law, we know how to challenge these assumptions with precision and strategy.

Our federal criminal defense attorneys have deep experience analyzing fear-based robbery cases and presenting persuasive counterarguments in court. Whether your case involves a silent note in a bank or misunderstood behavior during a stressful encounter, we are ready to advocate for your rights and fight for your future.

Contact Bulldog Law today for a confidential consultation with an experienced federal robbery defense attorney in California.