Invited-Error Waiver Solidified: United States v. Maldonado and the Boundaries of Rule 33 Relief

Introduction

This commentary dissects the Tenth Circuit’s July 2025 decision in United States v. Maldonado—the fourth appellate chapter in the high-profile prosecutions of Joseph Allen Maldonado, better known as “Joe Exotic” or “Tiger King.” The case arose from Maldonado’s motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a), claiming newly discovered evidence, Brady/Giglio violations, and an unraised entrapment defense. Central to the appeal were two distinct sets of convictions:

Two counts of using interstate facilities in a murder-for-hire plot to kill animal-rights activist Carole Baskin.
Five counts of violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for shooting five tigers in his zoo.

On appeal, Maldonado challenged the district court’s denial of his Rule 33 motion, alleging multiple procedural and substantive errors. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in full, erecting new clarity around the invited-error doctrine, evidentiary-hearing discretion, and how ESA “health-care” exceptions function in captive-animal contexts.

Summary of the Judgment

The court (Judges Tymkovich, Baldock, and Eid) held—

Invited-Error Waiver. Maldonado waived his challenge to the governing legal standard (the five-part Berry test for newly discovered evidence) because he himself urged the district court to apply that test. Under the invited-error doctrine, such waiver is absolute absent a supervening change in law.
Insufficient briefing equals waiver. Arguments that the district court wrongly deemed his claims “conclusory” were also waived for lack of developed appellate briefing.
No abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. Alleged witness recantations were unsworn, internally inconsistent, or flatly contradicted by the trial record, allowing the district court to decide credibility without live testimony.
ESA convictions stand. Shooting the tigers did not qualify as “providing health-care/euthanasia” under 50 C.F.R. §17.3; “new” affidavits about the animals’ health could have been discovered pre-trial and were therefore not “newly discovered.”
No Brady/Giglio violations. The claimed undisclosed immunity deals with Allen Glover and James Garretson were unsupported or immaterial.
Entrapment defense waived. Because the defense was never raised below and plain-error was not argued on appeal, it was deemed waived.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited & Their Influence

Berry v. Georgia, 10 Ga. 511 (1851) – Supplies the five-factor test for newly discovered evidence, adopted in the Tenth Circuit via Ramsey and Stevens. Maldonado invited its application, triggering waiver.
United States v. McBride, 94 F.4th 1036 (10th Cir. 2024) – Restates invited-error principles; heavily quoted.
United States v. Chatman, 994 F.2d 1510 (10th Cir. 1993) – “New trials are viewed with great caution” and outlines abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 33 denials.
United States v. Jackson, 579 F.2d 553 (10th Cir. 1978) – Enumerates the standard Maldonado had to satisfy for newly discovered evidence.
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995); Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) – Define Brady materiality; applied to reject Maldonado’s Giglio claims.
Pearson, Bradshaw, Page – Explain when an evidentiary hearing is mandatory for recantation-based Rule 33 motions.

2. Legal Reasoning in Depth

2.1 Invited-Error Waiver Expanded

The panel emphasized that where a defendant affirmatively proposes a legal standard (here, the Berry test’s “probability of acquittal” requirement), waiver is complete and not merely forfeiture. Unless the law changes between the district-court decision and appeal—a “supervening-decision exception”—the defendant cannot pivot on appeal. The court thereby converted prior dicta into a hard rule: the invited-error doctrine forecloses both plain-error review and any merits consideration.

2.2 Conclusory Briefing as Self-Inflicted Waiver

Relying on Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) and circuit authority such as MacArthur, the panel treated skeletal briefing as a separate waiver ground. Absent pinpoint citations and developed reasoning, the appellate court need not mine the record for “buried truffles.”

2.3 Evidentiary-Hearing Discretion

The court reconciled prior cases by reaffirming two touchstones:

A hearing is ordinarily required where live testimony is essential to gauge credibility, unless the written record and the trial judge’s prior exposure to the witnesses suffice.
Unsworn, post-verdict statements generally cannot overcome sworn trial testimony (Pearson).

Takeaway: defense counsel must secure sworn affidavits if they hope to compel a post-trial evidentiary hearing.

2.4 ESA “Healthcare” Exception Clarified

The opinion tightly cabined the 50 C.F.R. §17.3 “provision of healthcare” safe harbor. Maldonado’s admission that he shot the tigers solely for speed and cost, bypassing veterinarian protocols, removed him from the exception. Thus illness of the animals—even if true—would not bar conviction. The court effectively announced: lethal force qualifies as “health-care euthanasia” only when performed under professional protocols designed to promote the species’ well-being.

2.5 Materiality Under Brady/Giglio

Even assuming undisclosed benefits, Maldonado failed to establish a “reasonable probability” of a different verdict. The panel underscored that when a witness’s potential liability (or lack thereof) was already known to the jury, additional data about alleged promises is merely cumulative.

3. Impact of the Judgment

Trial Strategy and Post-Trial Motions: Defense lawyers in the Tenth Circuit must now treat the invited-error doctrine as an iron-clad bar; selecting a favorable legal test at the district-court level forecloses later appellate pivoting.
Rule 33 Practice: Affidavits must be sworn and must contain facts genuinely unavailable before trial; otherwise, the “newly discovered evidence” prong fails automatically.
ESA Enforcement: Zoos and private owners cannot rely on informal “mercy killings” to avoid ESA liability. Any euthanasia must follow documented veterinary protocols.
Brady/Giglio Litigation: The opinion reiterates the burden on defendants to prove the existence of undisclosed agreements; speculative or single unsworn statements will not suffice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 33 Motion: A request after conviction asking the trial judge to order a new jury trial when “the interest of justice so requires.” Generally disfavoured and subject to tight standards.
Invited-Error Doctrine: If you ask the trial court to apply a rule or take a step, you cannot later complain that it did so. Think of it as “you broke it, you bought it.”
Brady/Giglio: Prosecutors must share evidence that either helps the defense’s case (Brady) or could impeach government witnesses (Giglio). A violation requires proof that the suppressed evidence was important enough to sway the verdict.
Endangered Species Act “Take”: “Take” is a catch-all word meaning harm, hunt, shoot, kill, etc., of listed species. There are narrow exemptions, but they are interpreted strictly.
Evidentiary Hearing (post-trial): A mini-trial held after conviction so the judge can see live testimony about alleged perjury, recantations, or new evidence. Not automatic; granted only when credibility cannot be judged from papers alone.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Maldonado cements three critical propositions:

The invited-error doctrine operates as a complete, non-reviewable waiver—particularly where a defendant recommends a legal standard then seeks to disavow it on appeal.
Discretionary decisions on Rule 33 motions, including whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing, will be upheld absent clear error, especially when recantations are unsworn or contradicted by the trial record.
The ESA’s “health-care” exemption is narrow: cost-saving killings do not qualify as euthanasia, even in settings involving captive exotic animals.

Beyond the media intrigue of “Tiger King,” the judgment provides a robust blueprint for future litigants on how (and how not) to structure post-trial challenges. By intertwining waiver doctrines with substantive wildlife-protection and disclosure rules, the case will influence criminal-procedure strategy, ESA jurisprudence, and the ethical calculus of prosecutors and defense counsel alike.