 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (March 2015) |
| Whitfield v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 2, 2014 Decided January 13, 2015 | |
| Full case name | Larry Whitfield, Petitioner v. United States |
| Docket no. | 13-9026 |
| Citations | 574 U.S. 265 (more) 135 S. Ct. 785; 190 L. Ed. 2d 656 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Whitfield, 548 F. App'x 70 (4th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 573 U.S. 930 (2014). |
| Subsequent | United States v. Whitfield, 651 F. App'x 190 (4th Cir. 2016) |
| Holding | |
| The forced accompaniment statute described under 18 U.S.C. §2113(e) does not only apply to cases where the victim was forced to accompany the robber (or attempted robber) over a "substantial" distance. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) | |
Whitfield v. United States, 574 U.S. 265 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned whether the forced accompaniment statute under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) applies when a bank, credit union, or savings/loan association robber, or attempted robber, forces someone to accompany them for any distance. Defense attorney Joshua B. Carpenter argued on behalf of the Petitioner, and Assistant to the Solicitor General Brian H. Fletcher argued on behalf of the Department of Justice.[1]
- ^ "Transcript of Oral Arguments for Whitfield v. United States" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. December 2, 2014. Retrieved March 6, 2015.