![]() |
U.S. Department
of Justice
United
States Attorney 1100
Commerce St., 3rd Fl. |
||||
|
Telephone (214) 659-8600 |
|||||
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
DALLAS, TEXAS
|
||||
| CONTACT: 214/659-8600 www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn |
APRIL 24, 2006
|
||||
|
Men Who Burglarized a Grapevine, Texas, Business and Stole Firearms
Each defendant was charged in a superseding indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Fort Worth in November 2005, with one count of possession of a stolen firearm, one count of theft of a firearm from a federal firearms licensee and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. McDonald pled guilty in November 2005 to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and Simmons pled guilty in January 2006 to one count of theft of a firearm from a federal firearms licensee. According to documents filed in Court, on October 7, 2004, an employee of Airport Jewelry and Loan of Grapevine notified the Grapevine Police Department that the business had been burglarized and reported that 18 handguns, numerous pieces of jewelry and $2700 in cash had been taken. When police arrived at the business, they discovered that the alarm system, including a remote backup alarm had been defeated. Once inside the business, the burglars were able to enter the vault room by using tools, such as a drill, grinder, hammers and saws found in the business. Officers also seized a styrofoam cup found next to a shelf next to the safe. On December 30, 2004, Irving Police Department officers obtained information about defendant McDonald’s whereabouts and obtained a search warrant for the residence. In the residence, police officers found defendants McDonald and Simmons, two stolen firearms, including a Ruger, 9 mm caliber pistol model P89, which was identified as stolen in the burglary, $2687 in U.S. currency and numerous tools including tools used to enter Airport Jewelry and Loan’s vault room. The seized styofoam cup was sent to the Tarrant County Medical Examiner and Forensic Laboratories and a sample of saliva on the cup was compared to the known DNA of both defendants. Based on the forensic analysis, neither defendant can be excluded as a contributor of the DNA recovered from the cup. .
|
|||||