bound by King’s guilty plea to refrain from presenting evidence regarding the drug count. “It is well established in this circuit that as a general rule, the government is not bound by a defendant’s offer to stipulate.” United States v. Hiland, 909 F.2d 1114, 1134 (8th Cir.1990). While putting the government through the rigors of a trial is not a per se bar to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the trial court enjoys wide latitude in this area. There was nothing to show that King f-court statement was harmless error under the Chapman standard subsumes the Rule 52(a) analysis applicable to King’s hearsay argument, since the Chapman standard imposes a higher burden upon the beneficiary of the error than Rule 52(a). See United States v. DeAngelo, 13 F.3d 1228, 1233 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 2717, 129
recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that chapman harmless error analysis is stricter than its rule 52a counterpart holding under former rule 52a appellant must object to alleged error in the trial court or such error is waived recognizing that the state court need not explicitly rely on chapman to warrant federal review under brecht but not deciding the issue because the error was also harmless under chapman holding that chapman mandates harmless error analysis of griffin error