Inquiry into stipulation of fact Sample Clauses

Inquiry into stipulation of fact. Military judge must conduct inquiry into the stipulation of fact (the document that reinforces the accused’s plea and embraces what both parties agree are the facts of the case). The PTA normally requires the accused agrees to enter into a stipulation of fact; it may form a basis for admitting aggravating evidence (e.g., accused will agree to stipulate to admissibility to ensure favorable pretrial agreement).

Inquiry into stipulation of fact. United States x. Xxxxx, 65 X.X. 233 (C.A.A.F. 2007). Accused was charged with desertion terminated on 17 March 2003 and pled guilty to lesser-included offense of unauthorized absence terminating on 22 January 2003. In accordance with his pretrial agreement, accused entered into a stipulation of fact that included the “circumstances surrounding his two arrests in Michigan . . . [and] how [he] was returned to military control.” The stipulation of fact also contained the following: “These facts may be considered by the Military Judge in determining the providence of the accused’s plea of guilty, and they may be considered by the sentencing authority . . . even if the evidence of such facts is deemed otherwise admissible.” (emphasis supplied by the court). The stipulation also included a “Stipulation to Admissibility of Evidence,” stating, “the following evidence is admissible at trial, may be considered by the military judge in determining the providence of the accused’s plea of guilty, and may be considered by the sentencing authority . . . .” (emphasis supplied by the court). The paragraph then listed several exhibits, including the stipulation of fact. During the providence inquiry, military judge advised the accused as to how the stipulation of fact would be used, stating that it would be used to determine guilt of the offenses to which the accused plead guilty and to determine an appropriate sentence. After the military judge accepted the accused’s plea, the government presented evidence for the desertion charge; trial counsel called only one witness, who testified that he did not know the accused and was surprised to see him in his company formation on 17 March 2003, the alleged termination date of the accused’s AWOL. After both sides rested, trial counsel sought to clarify that the providence inquiry would not be considered by the court in proving defenses to the alleged desertion. The defense counsel stated, “We believe the contents of the providence inquiry can be used for proving the elements of the greater offense . . . and the defense can also used anything exculpatory elicited I the providence inquiry as well.” XX said he would “consider the stipulation of fact and everything I have heard up to now in determining the guilt or innocence of [the accused] on the greater offense.” During argument, trial counsel used the facts in the stipulation of fact and the providence inquiry to argue that the accused had formed the intent to remain away permanent...