United States v. Charles Cornelius James

The government neglected to introduce evidence that banks it accused Charles Cornelius James of robbing were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Even though proof of FDIC insurance is an element of the federal crime of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), James was convicted. He appeals on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. 1 We have to decide whether a stipulation about “the FDIC aspect of the case,” made outside the presence of the jury, and the assertion by James’s counsel in opening statement and closing argument that the only issue was identification, suffice to uphold the verdict. We think not, and therefore reverse.

I

James was convicted of robbing American Savings Bank, Home Federal Savings, and Bank of the West during August and September, 1990 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). At trial, the government rested without presenting any evidence that these banks were insured by the FDIC. After the defense rested but before the close of evidence, the Assistant United States Attorney advised the court outside the presence of the jury that “I still have to draw a stipulation as to FDIC.” The next day the government successfully moved, over…

dissenting.

Today, a convicted bank robber goes free, immune from further prosecution. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18 , 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) (a second trial is barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause if a reversal is based upon the insufficiency of the evidence). Why? Because the jury was not expressly told that the prosecutor and defense counsel had stipulated that the jury need not decide whether the victim banks were federally insured.

I respectfully dissent because it is not necessary to read a stipulation removing a factual question from the jury. Stipulations are ordinarily read to prevent the jury from finding against the party that has the burden of producing evidence on that issue because none was presented. In this case, the prosecution, not the defendant, suffered the risk of an adverse verdict because the stipulation was not read to the jury. The jurors unanimously found that each element of the crime of bank robbery was proved beyond a reasonable doubt because they were told repeatedly by both counsel that they need not decide whether the banks were federally insured.

If the result reached by the majority were in fact compelled by…

987 F.2d 648 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Cornelius JAMES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-10043. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 1, 1993. * Decided March 8, 1993. J. Frank McCabe, Goorjian & McCabe, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellant. Rodolfo M. Orjales, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, CA, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before: ALARCON, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. RYMER, Circuit Judge: 1 The government neglected to introduce evidence that banks it accused Charles Cornelius James of robbing were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Even though proof of FDIC insurance is an element of the federal crime of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), James was convicted. He appeals on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. 1 We have to decide whether a stipulation about "the FDIC aspect of the case," made outside the presence of the jury, and the assertion by James's counsel in opening statement and closing argument that the only issue was identification, suffice to uphold the verdict. We think not, and…