695 F.3d 74
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Indictment in 2009 for bank theft, aiding and abetting, and bank theft; government evidence tied appellant to a staged D.C. armored-car robbery with $210,000 recovered; co-conspirators testified and phone records linked appellant to call from a specific phone line.
- During the first trial, two stipulations about phone records were agreed: each stated records were true copies and may be admitted in this trial, not clearly limited to that trial.
- A mistrial occurred after both sides discussed inconsistencies in the phone records and the jury deadlocked.
- On retrial, the district court considered enforcing the stipulations; defense objected, arguing the stipulations were limited to the first trial and that enforcement would cause injustice.
- The district court allowed enforcement; jury found appellant guilty on both counts; appellant appeals asserting abuse of discretion and manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforcing the stipulations on retrial was an abuse of discretion. | Appellant | Appellee | No abuse; stipulations binding absent manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 1998) (stips generally binding; weigh interests of justice and fairness)
- Wingate v. United States, 128 F.3d 1157 (7th Cir. 1997) (district court has broad discretion to enforce stipulations; may consider efficienc and fairness)
- Hunt v. Marchetti, 824 F.2d 916 (11th Cir. 1987) (stips may be limited to a trial if clearly intended; not inert evidence)
- Kickapoo Tribe v. Babbitt, 43 F.3d 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (trial court discretion to manage stipulations; relief to prevent injustice)
- United States v. King, 254 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (harmless error standard for evidentiary stipulations)
- United States v. Kiser, 948 F.2d 418 (8th Cir. 1991) (stips in criminal prosecutions generally enforceable absent manifest injustice)