Opinion ID: 772800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bergen's Claims of Error at Trial

Text: 27 At Bergen's trial, the Government introduced autopsy photos showing the extent of Pizzuto's bruising, and invited fourteen witnesses to comment on them. Bergen contends that this use of the photos was more prejudicial than probative, in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 403, especially because he offered to stipulate that the assault occurred. 28 In limited circumstances, the Government can be required to accept a stipulation by the defendant to a particular fact, rather than present evidence proving the stipulated fact. In Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), the Court ruled that, because the defendant was willing to stipulate to the fact of his prior conviction, it was error to admit evidence detailing the prior offense, even though the prior conviction was an element of the pending gun possession charge. The Court noted that the Government generally has a right to present evidence of a fact that a defendant would prefer to admit, so as to establish the human significance of the fact and to implicate the law's moral underpinnings. Id. at 187-88. The Court recognized an exception, however, when the point at issue is a defendant's legal status, dependent on some judgment rendered wholly independently of the concrete events of later criminal behavior charged against him. Id. at 190. The Court emphasized that the evidence of Old Chief's prior offense was highly prejudicial (potentially luring a jury to convict based on character rather than conduct), and did not fill a gap in the story of a defendant's subsequent criminality. Id. at 191. 29 Bergen claims that his case is like Old Chief because he was willing to stipulate that the beating occurred and the photos invited the jury to convict him based on revulsion at what was done to Pizzuto. We disagree. First, although the details of the prior offense were irrelevant to the defendant's culpability in Old Chief, in the pending case the extent of Pizzuto's injuries established that cruel and unusual punishment had occurred, and underscored the moral blame attaching to Bergen's decision to cover up the crime. The photos also helped to resolve a disputed point at the trial--that Pizzuto's signature on Bergen's cover-up report was coerced by the beating he had just received. Thus, unlike the details of the prior conviction in Old Chief, details of Pizzuto's injuries were legally and morally relevant to the conduct constituting the offenses committed by Bergen's principals. Judge Mishler did not exceed his discretion in admitting the photos. See United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 122-23 (2d Cir. 1998) (no abuse of discretion to admit a significant number of graphic and disturbing photos of World Trade Center bombing victims, including corpse of a pregnant woman, despite defendants' stipulation offer). 30
31 Bergen contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. His specific point is that the Government did not prove that he knew his injury report (which claimed that Pizzuto fell in the shower) was false. This claim lacks merit. Inmates and other corrections officers testified that Bergen falsified his report. The inmates heard Pizzuto tell Bergen, your guys did this on the day of the assault. The corrections officers also testified that Bergen knew from the start that Pizzuto had been assaulted, and that Bergen volunteered to cover it up.