From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Arnett

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 24, 2003
353 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2003)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

accepting government's confession of error in relying on offensive collateral estoppel

Summary of this case from Cornelius v. Smith
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

Nos. 00-10170, 00-30189.

December 24, 2003.

Thomas E. Flynn, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Frank R. Pagagni, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David M. Porter, Esq., Federal Public Defender's Office, Sacramento, CA, Thomas W. Flynn, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

D.C. Nos. CR-95-05287-REC, CR-95-60120-HO.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge; REINHARDT, RYMER, T.G. NELSON, GRABER, FISHER, GOULD, PAEZ, TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On November 25, 2003, only two weeks before these eight-year-old cases were scheduled for oral argument before this en banc court, the United States filed a supplemental brief in which it confessed error on the collateral estoppel issue:

In federal criminal trials, the United States may not use collateral estoppel to establish, as a matter of law, an element of an offense or to conclusively rebut an affirmative defense on which the Government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In our Case No. 00-10170, the confession of error affects each of the counts charging use of a firearm during a crime of violence, which are Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14. The convictions on those counts are REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for retrial or other appropriate disposition of those counts. The convictions on Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 are AFFIRMED. The sentence imposed in the judgment filed on March 29, 2000, is VACATED pending further proceedings on remand.

The memorandum disposition filed on April 24, 2003, which was withdrawn by this court's order of October 3, 2003, is hereby reinstated. Any sentencing issues raised under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), may be considered as necessary on remand.

The judgment in Case No. 00-10170 is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

The judgment in Case No. 00-30189 is AFFIRMED in all respects.

Summaries of

U.S. v. Arnett

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 24, 2003
353 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2003)

accepting government's confession of error in relying on offensive collateral estoppel

Summary of this case from Cornelius v. Smith

accepting concession that government "may not use collateral estoppel to establish, as a matter of law, an element of an offense or to conclusively rebut an affirmative defense on which the government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Summary of this case from State v. Huffine

In United States v. Arnett, 353 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2003), an en banc hearing was scheduled to review an earlier determination by a three-judge panel that the defendant was estopped from presenting expert proof, in his subsequent bank robbery trials, that the weapon he had used was an antique, although the jury in the first of his series of bank robbery trials had heard defense expert proof on this claim and rejected it.

Summary of this case from State v. Scarbrough
Case details for

U.S. v. Arnett

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Wayne ARNETT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 24, 2003

Citations

353 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2003)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Smith-Baltiher

In a written submission to the en banc court, the government abandoned its defense of the use of offensive…

U.S. v. Sandoval-Gonzalez

As we observed in Smith-Baltiher, it is now the law of our circuit that collateral estoppel may not be used…

18 Citing Cases