United States of America v. Tre Joseph Connor

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2802
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Tre Joseph Connor
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: June 13, 2025
Filed: June 27, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Two years ago, a masked man carrying a pistol walked into River Region
Credit Union, leapt over the counter, and directed an employee to open the vault,
from which he made off with over a hundred thousand dollars. A jury found that
Tre Connor was that man and convicted him of bank robbery, brandishing a
firearm during and in relation to bank robbery, and possessing a firearm as a felon.
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 2113(a). Connor maintains that the

-- 1 of 4 --

evidence was insufficient to identify him as the robber or establish that he
possessed the pistol named in his indictment. But the district court1 was
unconvinced, and, having reviewed the evidence for ourselves, so are we. We
therefore affirm.
Connor’s apparel and physical characteristics matched the robber’s as
depicted in surveillance video of the robbery. Shortly before the robbery, Connor
purchased a black backpack with the same tan trim and white liner as the one the
robber carried and AND1-branded sweatpants like the ones the robber wore.
Investigators also found a shoebox for sneakers of the same style as the robber’s in
Connor’s home. And the jury heard testimony that Connor was athletic enough to
jump over a tall obstacle as the robber did.
Additional evidence indicated that Connor was near the scene of the crime
during its commission. Video recordings revealed that a black car with a missing
hubcap turned onto the road behind the credit union just before the robbery and
retraced its path just after the robbery on its way toward Connor’s neighborhood.
This was a ringer for the car that Connor drove when he bought the backpack and
sweatpants, from which investigators recovered a wallet containing Connor’s
driver’s license.
There was also evidence that Connor acted like a robber after the robbery
occurred. He paid cash to stay in a hotel the night of the robbery even though he
had a home in the same city. And within days of the robbery, he started making or
attempting to make a number of unusually large gifts or purchases.
But what really cemented the identification of Connor as the robber was
information extracted from his phones showing that he planned the robbery. Or at
least a reasonable jury could so find. In the weeks before the robbery, Connor’s
phones registered numerous searches for guidance on committing a robbery and
1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
--22--

-- 2 of 4 --

getting away with it, along with searches for credit unions in his area and for River
Region Credit Union specifically. A digitized note uploaded on the day that
Connor bought the black backpack and AND1-branded sweatpants had the look of
a shopping list for items the robber used, including not only a backpack and
sweatpants but also a mask, gloves, a hoodie, and a “glizzy,” or gun. And searches
registered after the robbery reflected ongoing interest in the investigation of bank
robberies and the River Region Credit Union robbery in particular. Nothing we
might say could more effectively convey the strength of the search evidence, not
to speak of the note, than one of the registered queries: “Can you delete your
search history on Google?”
We cannot accept Connor’s defense that the government failed to prove his
responsibility for the data on his phones. A forensic investigator testified that the
phones were password-protected, that Connor was their primary user, and that
there was no evidence of secondary users. It would be remarkable if the weeks’
worth of inculpatory data on the phones accumulated because someone other than
Connor used them. At minimum, even if the existence of one or more alternative
users is “within the realm of possibility,” that does “not give us reason to overturn
the jury’s verdict.” See United States v. Burch, 113 F.4th 815, 822 (8th Cir. 2024).
There is equally little merit in Connor’s attempt to pin the robbery on his
brother. There is no evidence that his brother ever possessed any apparel like the
robber’s, drove any car like the one that was present near the credit union during
the robbery, engaged in any suspicious activity after the robbery, or used either of
Connor’s phones from which investigators extracted information. All of that
evidence pointed to Connor alone. Having reviewed it, the jury could easily find
that he was the robber beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Redmond,
2024 WL 4541810, at *2 (8th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024) (unpublished per curiam); cf.
United States v. Lowen, 647 F.3d 863, 869 (8th Cir. 2011).
From that finding there was only a small step to the jury’s finding that
Connor possessed the pistol named in his indictment. An investigator matched the
--33--

-- 3 of 4 --

make of that pistol, which investigators discovered at his grandparents’ home, to
the make of the pistol that the robber carried. And cell site location data put
Connor at the home shortly after the robbery. Accepting, as it did, that Connor was
the robber, the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the robber’s pistol
and the pistol found in the home were one and the same and that Connor possessed
it before leaving it with his grandparents. That his grandfather had locked up the
pistol by the time investigators searched the home hardly compels a different
conclusion, Connor’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Affirmed.
______________________________
--44--

-- 4 of 4 --