US v. Pratt, No. 05-2624. This is a Felon-in-Posssession/ACCA case. . The parties stipulated that: 1) he had been convicted of five specific crimes in the past; and 2) one of the crimes was punishable by more than a year in prison. But, this stipulation was never shown to the jury. The judge, however, instructed the jury about it, saying that they could accept those facts as true. He did not lodge an objection on sufficiency grounds. The First does note that the trial court should present such a stipulation before the close of evidence, and not during jury instruction. But, the First concludes that this didn’t really matter, since the parties just wanted the jury to be told about the conviction without elaboration. There is lots of discussion about the nature of stipulations, and you should read it so as not to be mocked when people talk about them. Boudin concurs saying that there really isn’t settled law on the subject, so the rest of the court should stop acting like there is.
As to the argument that New Hampshire’s “escape” statute is not a violent felony, the First rejects it – why? – it says its caselaw requires it. Unlike the 5th, the court politely rejects an Almendarez-Torres argument.
Comments