United States v. Donald Washburn
728 F.3d 775
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- While on probation for prior wire fraud and money laundering convictions, Donald Washburn solicited investors for new commercial schemes and was indicted on 49 counts (wire fraud, money laundering, false statements to probation).
- Washburn signed and initialed a plea agreement containing a factual stipulation and an express waiver of Rule 410 protections, but he postponed and ultimately did not enter the guilty plea.
- At trial the government introduced the factual stipulation from the unsigned change-of-plea hearing as evidence; the jury convicted Washburn on 47 counts.
- Washburn moved pretrial to sever financial counts from false-statement-to-probation counts; the district court denied the motion.
- During trial the court questioned defense counsel about allegedly exculpatory handwritten documents Washburn had provided; Washburn later alleged this created a conflict of interest.
- Near the end of trial Washburn was briefly hospitalized from a self-inflicted nail-gun injury; the court found his absence voluntary, proceeded with parts of the trial in his absence, and Washburn returned for closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Washburn) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of plea agreement factual stipulation under Fed. R. Evid. 410 | Waiver language was hidden/ambiguous and government never warned it would use the stipulation if plea not entered; thus Rule 410 barred use. | Waiver in the signed/initialed plea agreement was knowing and voluntary; agreement is contractual and permitted use if defendant breached or failed to follow through. | Court affirmed admission: waiver was knowing/voluntary and stipulation admissible. |
| Exclusion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 | Even if waived, stipulation was unfairly prejudicial and cumulative; should be excluded or limited. | District court weighed probative value and found it streamlined proof; no limiting instruction requested by Washburn. | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; claim forfeited by failure to request limiting instruction. |
| Motion to sever counts (Joinder/Rule 14) | Joinder prejudiced Washburn because prior-conviction evidence would unduly taint other counts; he might have testified in a separate false-statement trial. | Prior conviction evidence would be admissible in separate trials under Rule 404(b); similarity made it probative for intent/absence of mistake. | Affirmed denial: no severe prejudice; joinder not an abuse of discretion. |
| Sixth Amendment — conflict-free counsel (trial court statements about counsel and documents) | Court’s remarks created a potential conflict; trial court had duty to inquire further or secure a waiver for conflict-free counsel. | Court’s remarks were inquisitive, not a finding of conflict; no actual or apparent conflict requiring relief; ineffective-assistance claim is better raised post-conviction. | No plain error; claim dismissed without prejudice as ineffective-assistance record not developed. |
| Proceeding while defendant absent (Rule 43 / constitutional right to be present) | Court violated Rule 43 and constitutional right by continuing jury instruction and government closing while Washburn was hospitalized. | Court held Washburn’s absence was voluntary after hearing; public interest warranted proceeding; Washburn returned for his closing. | Affirmed: factual finding of voluntary absence not clearly erroneous and proceeding was not an abuse of discretion; any error harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mezzanatto v. United States, 513 U.S. 196 (1995) (plea-statement protections are presumptively waivable)
- United States v. Young, 223 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2000) (analyzing knowing/voluntary waiver of Rule 410 in plea agreement)
- United States v. Miller, 295 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2002) (treating plea agreements as contractual)
- United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 1998) (waiver validity examined from signing circumstances)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978) (court must address actual conflicts of interest in representation)
- United States v. Edelmann, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (counsel loyalty and court obligations when conflicts arise)
- United States v. Wallingford, 82 F.3d 278 (8th Cir. 1996) (standards for proceeding in defendant's absence and Rule 43 analysis)
- United States v. Thompson, 690 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2012) (standards for raising ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)