United States v. Walters: Third Circuit Clarifies Client Authority Over Stipulations To Offense Elements

The Third Circuit in United States v. Walters (Sept. 4, 2025) recently addressed a recurring question in federal criminal practice: must a client consent to a stipulation as to an element of a charged offense? The Court’s answer underscores the constitutional limits of defense counsel’s authority and provides important guidance for white collar practitioners.

Case Overview

Walters was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and refused to stipulate that he was a felon and that he was aware of his status. His lawyer, believing such a stipulation was strategically advantageous, sought to enter the stipulation over Walters’ objection. The district court rejected counsel’s attempt, and the government was permitted to introduce Walters’ prior convictions and Walters was subsequently convicted. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed.

The Holding

The Third Circuit held that under the Sixth Amendment, the defendant, not counsel, has the final word on whether to concede substantive elements of the charged offense. Even in instances where counsel believes concession is the better trial strategy, the decision to admit facts that go directly to criminal liability belongs to the accused.

The Third Circuit made a point of distinguishing between substantive elements of a crime, which relate to the defendant’s criminal conduct or state of mind, and jurisdictional elements, which are technical prerequisites that enable federal prosecution (such as FDIC insurance in bank robbery cases). While the former require client consent, the latter may still be stipulated to by counsel without client approval. Thus, common stipulations in white collar cases such as those establishing the interstate wire requirement in wire fraud prosecutions are unaffected.

Strategic Decisions Still Reserved for Counsel

The Walters decision provides a useful reminder of the division of authority, between counsel and their client, in criminal defense. Strategic and tactical trial decisions remain within the control of counsel. These include choices such as what arguments to pursue, which witnesses to call, what evidentiary objections to raise, whether to file pretrial motions, how to cross-examine witnesses, and what themes to emphasize at opening and closing. By contrast, fundamental objectives, such as whether to plead guilty, testify, appeal, or concede substantive elements of guilt are reserved to the client.

Practical Implications for White Collar Practice

For white collar practitioners, Walters serves as a caution that stipulations involving substantive elements should never be entered without the client’s express approval. At the same time, the decision preserves efficiency in trials by allowing counsel to continue stipulating to jurisdictional or technical elements, a common and prudent practice in complex Federal fraud cases. Counsel should ensure the record reflects the client’s position on any stipulation touching on substantive elements, thereby avoiding later disputes or appellate challenges.