Court Opinion

ID: 9465795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:55:51.396781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:22.371329
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part' and dissenting in part:
I concur in parts I and II and most of part III of the majority opinion, but dissent as to reversal of Hammond’s conviction.
The government’s unquestionably improper conduct would have entitled Hammond to a mistrial if he had desired one. He did not. In fact, he objected to mistrial and proceeded on the basis of a stipulation. As a matter of defense strategy Hammond gambled and lost.
Hammond does not now argue that he is entitled to a new trial. He urges only that the government’s misconduct was so egregious that the district court erred by not dismissing the indictment. That contention is correctly rejected by the majority.
Under these particular circumstances, rather than grant Hammond the new trial to which he objected, I would affirm.