United States v. Washburn

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2013 · Evidence

728 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2013)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 410Rule 11(f)plea agreementwaiverknowing and voluntaryRule 403Rule 14

Facts

While on probation for prior wire fraud and money laundering convictions, Washburn solicited investors in commercial opportunities in which he falsely claimed to have an interest. Before trial, he signed and initialed a plea agreement under which he would plead guilty to two counts, and the agreement stated that the factual stipulation could be used against him if he violated or refused to follow through with the agreement, regardless of whether the court accepted it. Washburn later chose not to plead guilty, and at trial the government introduced the signed factual stipulation in its case against him. Near the end of trial, Washburn was briefly hospitalized after a self-inflicted nail-gun injury, and the district court proceeded with the jury-instruction conference and the government’s closing argument during his absence.

Issue

Whether the district court erred by admitting at trial the factual stipulation contained in Washburn’s signed but unconsummated plea agreement notwithstanding Rule 410, and whether the court also erred in denying severance, failing to address an alleged attorney conflict, and continuing trial during Washburn’s brief absence.

Rule

Statements made during plea discussions are generally inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Rule 11(f), but those protections are presumptively waivable. A waiver is valid and enforceable absent some affirmative indication that the agreement was entered into unknowingly or involuntarily, and a colloquy with the court is not a prerequisite for a valid waiver of a particular right. In deciding whether to proceed with trial in a defendant’s absence, a district court must determine whether the absence is knowing and voluntary and, if so, whether the public interest in proceeding clearly outweighs the defendant’s interest in attending.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in St. Louis, Nolan Pierce signed and initialed a written plea agreement stating that he had been advised of his rights under Rule 410 and that a factual stipulation could be used against him in any proceeding if he refused to follow through with the agreement, whether or not the court accepted it. Before any plea hearing occurred, Pierce told the prosecutor he had changed his mind and went to trial.

If the government offers the signed factual stipulation in its case-in-chief, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 410 and Rule 11 plea-statement protections are presumptively waivable. A signed plea agreement stating that the stipulation may be used if the defendant refuses to follow through is binding under ordinary contract principles, even if no plea hearing occurs and the court never accepts the plea. The waiver is valid unless there is some affirmative indication it was entered unknowingly or involuntarily.