‘A’s Bandit’ Suspect Open to Plea Bargain

The man accused of being the “A’s Bandit” said Thursday that he would probably settle for a four- to seven-year prison sentence as part of a plea bargain because “it will be difficult to wage a defense,” and “everyone thinks I’m guilty anyway.”

David W. Malley, arrested last April in connection with a celebrated spree of 29 bank robberies branded the “A’s Bandit series,” insisted in a telephone interview that he is not guilty but said he will accept any equitable offer from the government.

“I’m 22 years old, and looking at 20 years in prison is scary,” Malley said. “I’m still proclaiming my innocence, but I have to be realistic. Most people who go to trial don’t win. People will be looking at the pictures (taken during the bank robberies) and some of the other things. It will be difficult to wage a defense.”

Although he is charged with 28 counts of robbery--a 29th charge was not pursued because of identification problems--federal sentencing guidelines for bank robberies allow that only six can be charged to the same person, bringing a sentence of eight to 10 years if Malley is convicted on all counts.

But prosecutors in the case, who did not return calls for comment Thursday, have said they are seeking “an upward departure” in the sentencing by bringing up Malley’s criminal history in New York state, including convictions for passing bad checks and possessing a stolen car.

So far, Malley said, the U.S. attorney’s office has agreed to drop the “upward departure” terms of the sentence if he agrees to serve 20 years. Malley said he is willing to consider a four- to seven-year term.

“If they would give me four years minus six months for time served, with good-behavior laws I could be out in 2 1/2 years,” he said. “That’s something I’m inclined to look at.”

David Bartick, Malley’s attorney, said the government has made no firm plea-bargain offer other than to ask him to plead guilty to the indictment rather than risk a harsher sentence during a jury trial.

Because the series of robberies cut such a high profile and generated so many newspaper stories, it is unlikely that the government would agree to let his client off as easily as Malley has suggested, Bartick said.

“We are starting to negotiate just as we would on any other case,” Bartick said. Malley’s exposure “is tremendous, and we want to settle reasonably. But we’re not throwing in the towel. This is just a stage we always go through.”

As part of an effort to settle the case, Bartick and Assistant U.S. Atty. Patrick O’Toole are scheduled to meet Monday with U.S. District Judge Earl B. Gilliam.

Two of Bartick’s requests in court Monday were rejected: that items taken during a search of Malley’s apartment be suppressed because the warrant was invalid, and that 32 items seized during the search be withheld because they were not identified in the original warrant.

Chief U.S. District Judge Judith N. Keep ruled that the warrant was valid even though it was served after the legal time limit. She also agreed that only two items out of the 32 seized could be withheld.

Malley said the two items were significant. One listed a number of banks from which Malley said he was seeking a car loan. One of the banks was purportedly the same as one that was robbed, he said. The other piece of paper showed a Western Union receipt of money wired from New York.

While he is being held at the downtown Metropolitan Correctional Center, Malley said, he is taking correspondence courses that he hopes will earn him a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts.

Although he believes that all of the evidence the government has is circumstantial and that nothing directly links him to any of the robberies, publicity so far in the case has been so slanted that “everyone thinks I’m guilty anyway,” he said.

Malley is scheduled to go to trial Oct. 16. On Sept. 30, the two sides are supposed to meet to discuss a change of venue because of the publicity, but Keep has already said she is not likely to grant the motion. Government attorneys must still decide how many robbery counts Malley will face.

The robber, dubbed the A’s Bandit for the baseball cap he wore in the early robberies, made off with $34,000 between February and April, and sparked intense interest in the city because of his easy-going saunter into bank robberies and preppie, clean-cut looks.

During the announcement of his indictment, federal attorneys said they recovered less than $700 of the total, alleging that Malley spent the rest on a lavish lifestyle that included fashionable clothing, new furniture, a $5,000 down payment on a car and limousine rides and drinks for friends.

On Thursday, Malley said his only mistake “was stepping out of my apartment” April 26 “and into the arms of FBI agents. I’m innocent.”