Did the Ninth Circuit's disposition of Petitioner's Rule 403 claim, based on the district court's having abused its discretion by rejecting his proffered stipulation that would not only have conceded several essential elements under 18 U.S.C. § 2252, but also would have permitted a government agent to testify narratively to the jury about what certain images and videos depicted, conflict with Old Chief's rule?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Under Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), the government in a criminal case has only a presumptive — but not an unqualified — right — under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules to present its case-in-chief as it sees fit. Thus, whenever a defendant offers to stipulate to an offense’s essential element to avoid the jury’s reviewing prejudicial materials, “[i]t would be very odd for the law of evidence to recognize the danger of unfair prejudice only to confer such a degree of autonomy on the party subject to temptation, and the Rules of Evidence are not so odd.” Id. at 183-84. The question presented is as follows: Did the Ninth Circuit’s disposition of Petitioner’s Rule 403 claim, based on the district court’s having abused its discretion by rejecting his proffered stipulation that would not only have conceded several essential elements under 18 U.S.C. § 2252, but also would have permitted a government agent to testify narratively to the jury about what certain images and videos depicted, conflict with Old Chief’s rule? -prefix