The Denver-based federal appeals court concluded last week that a trial judge’s comments urging a criminal defense lawyer to be more cooperative in the presentation of evidence did not negatively affect the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Prior to trial, lawyers for both sides may agree which pieces of evidence are authentic — meaning they are what they are held out to be — and admissible, which encompasses a range of factors like relevance and hearsay. While a decision about whether to stipulate can be tactical, the effect of agreeing to the evidence ahead of time is to speed up the trial.

After a 2022 trial, jurors convicted Dedric Mayfield of being a felon in possession of ammunition. He received a sentence of 120 years in prison.

Shortly before the trial began, the parties appeared at a conference before U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez, who said the prosecution filed 89 exhibits for trial. The defense, in turn, had not stipulated to the authenticity or admissibility of any item on the list.

“That is not acceptable,” Martínez told Mayfield’s attorney. “I don’t know what’s going on here, but I’ve never gone to trial where defense counsel’s refused to stipulate to any exhibit of the government.”

Martínez elaborated that he wanted the defense to agree, “to the maximum extent possible,” that the evidence could come in. He acknowledged there may be a “good-faith basis” to object to specific pieces.

But if no reason existed, “you will be starting on a very bad footing with me if you do not at least, at a minimum, stipulate to the authenticity of these exhibits,” Martínez continued. “Nothing is going to put this jury to sleep quicker and derail the momentum of both sides if we have to plow through the foundational questioning to establish authenticity of an exhibit.”

The defense ended up agreeing to admit much of the government’s evidence.

On appeal, Mayfield argued Martínez’s admonishment “forced” his attorney into cooperating with the government out of a desire to move the trial along quicker, when there was nothing wrong with withholding the defense’s approval for any piece of evidence.

“At minimum, the court’s mandate had the appearance of implying it would act in a vindictive way against the defense if Mr. Mayfield’s counsel insisted on putting the government to its burden of proof,” wrote attorney Benjamin Miller. “The court’s laser-like focus on efficiency trampled Mr. Mayfield’s trial rights and eased the path for the government to convict him.”

During oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, a three-judge panel was skeptical of Miller’s claim that Mayfield’s counsel at trial was “on his heels” and deterred from objecting further as a result of Martínez’s comments.

“We do know that when certain things were important to this counsel, they did object,” said Judge Joel M. Carson III. “If we see instances in the record where counsel did object, was not afraid to object, why should we go off the assumption that the rest of the times they didn’t object, it’s because they were scared?”

Carson added that there is “normal cooperation” in a given trial about the anticipated evidence.

“The court has to have the ability to control people from being either a.) lazy or b.) obstructionist,” he said.

The appellate panel noted Mayfield’s attorney did not object to Martínez’s instruction at the time, meaning Martínez could not evaluate the defense’s position that there was a violation of Mayfield’s right to a fair trial or due process. Moreover, wrote Carson in the April 22 opinion, Martínez never prohibited the defense from making any objections going forward.

“To begin with, the district court made clear that it welcomed objections having a good-faith basis. Far from conveying a closed mind, the district court’s comments demonstrated a willingness to entertain good-faith objections,” Carson wrote. “Ultimately, the district court must be able to control the flow of a trial and curtail litigation strategies that might confuse the jury or cause them to lose focus on the proceedings.”

Even assuming Martínez acted improperly, the panel found there was enough evidence — either unchallenged by Mayfield or agreed upon by the defense before Martínez’s comments — for jurors to convict him.

The case is United States v. Mayfield.