Skip to main content

Exit WCAG Theme

Switch to Non-ADA Website

Accessibility Options

Select Text Sizes

Select Text Color

Website Accessibility Information Close Options
Close Menu

When Can Prosecutors Use “Pattern Evidence” to Prove You Committed a Crime?


If you are on trial for allegedly committing a crime, the prosecution generally cannot introduce evidence regarding any other crimes you may have committed in the past. This is considered “character evidence” and unless it has some relevance to the alleged crime, it is inadmissible. Essentially, the prosecution cannot use “prior bad acts” to pain you as a bad person who must have committed the crime you are actually on trial for now.

Federal Court Upholds Conviction of Georgia Man Charged in 5 Robberies

As with many rules governing criminal trials, however, there are exceptions. Prosecutors can introduce evidence of possible past crimes when they show a modus operandi or pattern of criminal conduct. For example, if prosecutors can show a string of robberies followed a specific pattern or methodology, evidence from all of these crimes could be used to convict the same defendant.

Indeed, this very thing happened in a recent decision from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Pendergrass. Federal prosecutors charged the defendant with committing a series of five robberies in Georgia between November 2016 and January 2017 while using a firearm. A jury eventually convicted the defendant of all five robberies.

On appeal, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support 3 of the 5 convictions. The 11th Circuit disagreed and upheld the jury’s verdict. While the evidence was “overwhelming” to support the defendant’s convictions on 2 of the robberies–which he did not challenge on appeal–there was sufficient “evidence of the modus operandi and other evidentiary patterns” to allow the jury to infer the defendant committed all of the robberies.

To sum up, the 11th Circuit noted that all of the robberies targeted “mom-and-pop establishments,” including two stores located in the same strip mall. All of the robberies occurred at or after closing time. In each incident, the robbers “covered their faces and brandished guns in the same way.” And in four of the robberies, the same robber–the defendant, according to the prosecution–wore a red shirt and white gloves. The Court of Appeals pointed to additional pattern evidence, but you get the point.

It is worth noting that modus operandi evidence can be admissible even when one of the items in the alleged “pattern” does not seem to fit. In the Pendergrass appeal, the defense noted that one of the five robberies was “inconsistent” with the others because that was the only incident where the “customers and employees were locked in a bathroom.” The 11th Circuit noted that all of the robberies demonstrated some degree of “forcefulness” by the robbers, albeit in different forms.

Contact Florida Criminal Defense Attorney Jose Baez Today

If you are charged with a crime–or a series of possibly related crimes–you need to take the matter seriously. An experienced Orlando criminal lawyer can zealously represent your interests in court and protect your rights. Contact the Baez Law Firm today to schedule a consultation.



By submitting this form I acknowledge that form submissions via this website do not create an attorney-client relationship, and any information I send is not protected by attorney-client privilege.

DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

Skip footer and go back to main navigation