## Facts

- An armed bank robbery occurred on October 13, 1971, in Massachusetts.
- Richard Plante and Bruce Trant were tried in federal district court and convicted of armed bank robbery.
- A participant in the robbery, Delvental, pleaded guilty and testified for the government.
- Delvental testified that Plante entered the bank as the armed robber and that Trant acted as the getaway driver.
- A hidden bank camera photographed the robber at the teller’s window; the government relied on the photograph as strong identification evidence.
- During trial, a witness made a statement implying Plante had been in jail before the robbery; the court struck the testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it.
- Plante suggested an alibi based on his appearance (that he had a beard at the relevant time); the government introduced a police photograph showing him clean-shaven near the relevant period.
- Plante offered to stipulate to facts about his appearance to avoid use of the photograph; the government declined, and the court admitted the photograph.
- Trant argued that the government’s proof of his participation depended too heavily on Delvental’s accomplice testimony and lacked sufficient corroboration.

## Issues

1. Whether an isolated trial reference implying Plante’s prior incarceration required reversal despite the court’s prompt striking of the testimony and curative instruction.
2. Whether admitting a police photograph to rebut Plante’s appearance-based alibi was unfairly prejudicial, particularly where Plante offered to stipulate to the relevant facts.
3. Whether Delvental’s accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated as to Trant’s alleged role as the getaway driver, and whether the jury instructions misstated how corroboration applied to Trant.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed both convictions.
- The court held the trial judge’s immediate striking of the incarceration reference and instruction to disregard it adequately cured any potential prejudice, especially given the strength of the evidence.
- The court held the police photograph was admissible rebuttal evidence with substantial probative value on a disputed issue (Plante’s appearance) and any prejudice from its police origin did not warrant exclusion.
- The court rejected the claim that the government had to accept Plante’s proposed stipulation instead of using the photograph.
- The court held there was sufficient corroboration of the accomplice testimony as to Trant and that the instructions, read as a whole, did not mislead the jury into treating evidence corroborating Plante as automatically corroborating Trant.

## Legal Principles

- An improper reference suggesting a defendant’s prior incarceration does not automatically require a mistrial or reversal; prompt striking and a clear curative instruction may render any error harmless in context.
- Relevant rebuttal evidence addressing a contested defense theory may be admitted even if it carries some risk the jury will infer prior police contact; exclusion turns on whether unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- The prosecution is generally entitled to present proof in its chosen form and is not required to accept a defendant’s stipulation as a substitute for admissible evidence.
- A conviction may rest in part on accomplice testimony where there is sufficient corroboration and the jury is properly instructed on how to evaluate corroborative evidence.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld the bank-robbery convictions, concluding that the trial court cured any prejudice from a brief incarceration reference, properly admitted a police photograph to rebut an appearance-based alibi despite an offered stipulation, and correctly allowed the jury to rely on accomplice testimony supported by adequate corroboration and proper instructions.


United States v. Plante, 472 F.2d 829 (1st Cir. 1973)