Youngstown Daily Legal News

Man in bank robbery spree loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to Legal News
Published: December 4, 2014

A panel of judges in the 1st District Court of Appeals recently found that the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas properly convicted Ahmad Shalash on four counts of robbery and two counts of aggravated robbery for his involvement in a Cincinnati bank robbery spree.

Shalash contended in his appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing arguments.

The evidence at trial established that Shalash played a role in four bank robberies that occurred over a six-week period from Sept. 7, 2012 to Oct. 22, 2012.

The first bank robbery took place at a Fifth Third Bank.

According to trial testimony from bank employees and surveillance video, a man entered the bank wearing a baseball hat, sunglasses and gloves and yelled “Give me all your money, this isn’t a joke, I’ve got a gun.”

When police arrived they found several large bills on the ground and a K-9 unit tracked the scent of the robber to the street.

Investigators concluded that the robber had likely entered a vehicle and fled the scene.

On Oct. 11, 2012, a man robbed an Emery Federal Credit Union.

Bank tellers testified that the robber was wearing a hooded sweatshirt, a bandana over his nose and gloves.

He walked to a teller’s window, told her he had a gun and demanded that she give him the money in the cash drawer.

The robber absconded with approximately $13,000.

During their investigation of the robbery, officers realized that a pattern was evolving. A day prior to the robbery a woman had entered the bank and asked for information on opening an account.

The day the robbery was committed, the same woman had entered the bank and spoken with another employee.

After examining surveillance video, investigators identified Jennifer Neitz, Shalash’s wife, as a possible suspect.

Bank employees identified Neitz from a photograph as the woman who had come in twice.

On Oct. 19, a Cheviot Savings Bank was robbed and a man in a medical mask, wielding a gun left with about $400.

A teller at the bank told police that a woman had entered the bank prior to the robbery and inquired about opening a business account.

At trial, the teller testified that the woman had appeared nervous and would not sit down.

Surveillance video depicted a white van in the back parking lot of the bank during the robbery.

The van was also spotted at the nearby St. James Elementary School.

A nurse at the school testified that, that afternoon, a suspicious man had entered the school saying he was looking for his brother.

When the name he gave did not match any of the school’s students, the man was asked to leave.

The school nurse testified that he left the school and walked toward a nearby credit union where he entered a white van.

The driver of the van waved to the nurse and she identified him as Shalash.

The nurse then recorded the license plate number of the van and gave it to police who subsequently found that the vehicle was registered to Neitz.

On Oct. 22, a First Financial Bank was robbed by a man with a gun.

Surveillance video depicted a woman entering the bank and speaking to a teller before the robbery occurred.

Through their investigation the police learned of Neitz’s marriage to Shalash and the couple’s relationship with Jake Pfalz.

It was established that Pfalz committed the robberies after Neitz “cased” the banks.

Shalash’s role included driving the getaway car and providing Pfalz clothes and a gun for the robberies.

During at least one of the robberies, Neitz’s and Shalash’s 4-year-old child was in the van.

Neitz and Shalash fled to North Carolina and were arrested there on unrelated charges then extradited to Ohio.

Pfalz, who stayed in Ohio, reportedly in order to avoid suspicion, was also arrested and gave a statement implicating himself and the others in the robberies.

Neitz also admitted her role in the robberies.

While in custody in North Carolina, she gave a statement to detectives implicating Pfalz and Shalash.

While in jail in Ohio she gave another statement to police but she wrote Shalash letters reassuring him that she would help him.

Case summary states that Neitz was afraid to tell Shalash she had spoken to the police.

At trial, she testified she, Shalash and Pfalz were addicted to heroin and carried out the robberies in order to support their habits.

She admitted that she testified against Shalash in exchange for a plea deal from the state but told the jury that she did not lie in order to receive better treatment.

Pfalz also testified against Shalash during his trial.

After a jury found Shalash guilty of the robbery charges with accompanying firearm specifications he was sentenced to a total prison term of 44 years.

“Shalash primarily argues that the state failed to prove his involvement in the offenses,” wrote Judge Patrick Fischer in the opinion he authored on behalf of the court of appeals.

Shalash contended that Neitz’s and Pfalz’s testimony was undermined by the promise of leniency from the state and he claimed that there was no physical evidence linking him to the crimes.

“But based on our review of the evidence, we conclude that the jury could have found that Shalash had participated in the robberies as either a principal or an accomplice,” wrote Judge Fischer, who noted that Neitz’s and Pfalz’s testimony was corroborated by bank surveillance videos and victims’ testimonies.

Because the jury was in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses, the appellate panel also ruled that Shalash’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Shalash’s second argument on appeal had to do with the prosecutor’s remarks during closing arguments.

He argued that the prosecutor’s statement that the robbery spree was committed during a “heroin-induced frenzy” should not have been allowed.

Additionally, Shalash pointed out the prosecutor’s statement about Shalash’s religion.

“A Muslim wife on top of that,” the prosecutor stated. “In that culture, the women aren’t even supposed to be out without a male relative and we got her robbing banks with a non-male relative with the kids in the truck. Give me a break.”

“Although the comments were arguably inappropriate, they were not so inflammatory that we can conclude that Shalash’s convictions resulted from passion and prejudice instead of the state’s proof of his guilt,” wrote Judge Fischer.

Ultimately, the appellate panel decided that the state provided “overwhelming evidence of Shalash’s guilt” and none of the prosecutor’s remarks were “outcome determinative.”

The judgment of the Hamilton County court was affirmed with Presiding Judge Penelope Cunningham and Judge Patrick DeWine concurring.

The case is cited State v. Shalash, 2014-Ohio-5006.

[Back]