United States v. Higdon
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5264
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Higden, a felon, was charged with possession of a firearm in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Prior to trial, Higden stipulated to a prior felony conviction and to the firearm traveling in interstate commerce.
- The stipulations included that the firearm was operable and a firearm as defined by § 922(g)(1) and 924(e), that it was manufactured outside Pennsylvania, and that Higden had a prior Pennsylvania felony conviction.
- The district court refused to inform the jury of the stipulations or the elements beyond possession, despite both parties agreeing the jury should be informed.
- At trial, the court gave a minimal jury instruction on the § 922(g)(1) offense, omitting two elements and any definition of possession.
- The jury hung on the first trial; on retrial, the government sought to inform the jury of all elements, but the district court again refused; mandamus relief was sought and granted on appeal, and the case was remanded with instruction to reassign to a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction for appeal and mandamus relief | Government seeks review of evidentiary restraint and misinstruction. | District court acted within discretion; no jurisdiction for mandamus. | Appeal proper over stipulation ruling; mandamus granted for improper jury instruction. |
| Proper scope of jury instruction on § 922(g)(1) | Jury must be instructed on all elements, including prior conviction and interstate commerce. | Stipulations may be used to prove elements without full jury involvement. | District court erred by not instructing all elements; stipulations cannot remove elements from jury consideration. |
| Effect of stipulations on the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights | Stipulations do not abridge jury's role; government should prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt. | Accepting stipulations can modify the statutorily required proof and prejudice the defendant. | Stipulations cannot eliminate elements from jury consideration; trial must inform on all elements. |
| Use of bifurcation to mitigate prejudice | Bifurcation could present all elements first, then consider prior conviction. | Bifurcation would be inappropriate and inconsistent with precedents. | Bifurcation not adopted; precedent disfavors bifurcated trials for § 922(g)(1). |
| Emergency mandamus relief given district court practices | Immediate correction required to remedy repeated errors. | Relief via mandamus is inappropriate or premature. | Mandamus granted to compel proper instruction and reassignment on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 517 U.S. 723 (1997) (stipulation of prior conviction; must inform that conviction exists, not its details)
- United States v. Williams, 612 F.2d 735 (3d Cir. 1979) (stipulation cannot modify criminal statute by removing an element)
- Gilliam v. United States, 994 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1993) (removing an element from jury consideration violates the jury system)
- Milton v. United States, 52 F.3d 78 (4th Cir. 1995) (removing prior felony element from jury’s consideration alters the crime)
- Amante v. United States, 418 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2005) (rejects removal of an element via stipulation; emphasizes jury knowledge)
- Jacobs v. United States, 44 F.3d 1219 (3d Cir. 1995) (bifurcation for § 922(g)(1) single-count case rejected)