Court Opinion

ID: 9471420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:31:57.818753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:24.040296
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I do not differ with the majority on its two central conclusions in connection with the exclusion of the patent: (1) such exclusion ordinarily would be a proper exercise of the district court’s authority under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and (2) parties cannot by stipulation bind a trial *331judge on questions of law. In my view, however, these principles do not control the question before us.
The essential facts are these: (1) government counsel stipulated that the patent would be received in evidence; (2) that stipulation (as part of a comprehensive pretrial stipulation) was approved by the court; (3) in the face of that stipulation government counsel objected to the patent; and (4) the trial court sustained the objection.
It is true that the trial court prodded government counsel:
THE COURT: [EXHIBIT] Six, would you like objections?
MR. SMITH: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, why not?
MR. SMITH: Okay. Six is the patent. We would object. It has a narrative in it.
We object on the basis of—
When asked “why not?,” the correct answer — and in my view the only ethical and honorable answer — was “because the government already has stipulated that it will be received.”
The majority’s treatment presents the issue as if it were a straightforward rejection by the trial court of an agreement by counsel in exercise of the court’s authority under Fed.R.Evid. 403. As it comes to us the question more precisely involves the sustaining of a government objection to evidence the admission of which it had already stipulated with court approval. The latter question cannot be resolved by principles that control the former.
The government is bound by its own court approved stipulations. We have held, for example, that once the government with court approval stipulates to the fourth amendment standing of a defendant, it is precluded on appeal from challenging the defendant’s standing. See United States v. Hernandez, 668 F.2d 824, 826 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982).
I would hold that under the circumstances of this case the trial court’s sustaining of a government objection made in clear violation of its own agreement compels reversal.