Also known as: integrity of judicial proceedings · public reputation of judicial proceedings · fairness of judicial proceedings · judicial integrity · administration of justice · appearance of justice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A discretionary consideration in plain error review that permits an appellate court to decline correction of a forfeited error unless the error seriously undermines the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Prosecutors indicted Felicity French in the Southern District for mortgage fraud even though all loan applications were prepared and funded in the Northern District. Defense counsel failed to object at trial. On appeal the court considered whether the venue error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before deciding whether to correct it.
Judge Forrest Falconer spoke at a fundraising dinner for a civic group that practiced invidious discrimination. No party objected during the proceedings. On appeal the court examined whether the judge's participation seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before exercising discretion to reverse.
Attorney Francois Fortier knowingly assisted a client in deleting responsive discovery documents during litigation. Opposing counsel did not object at trial. On appeal the court weighed whether the lawyer's actions seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before deciding to reverse.
Judge Fatima Flores engaged in voluntary illegal drug use and was chronically unavailable for hearings despite entering treatment. No objection was raised during proceedings. On appeal the court assessed whether these actions seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before ordering removal.
Judge Farid Farahani accepted an award at a fundraising event for a bar-related organization. No party objected during the proceedings. On appeal the court considered whether the judge's participation seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before exercising discretion to reverse.
The trial court instructed the jury that it could consider Floyd Franklin's silence as evidence of guilt. Defense counsel did not object. On appeal the court evaluated whether the constitutional error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before deciding whether to reverse under plain error review.
The defendant must demonstrate that the unpreserved error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Courts apply this prong sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances even when the first three prongs are met.
Strong evidence of guilt can support a finding that the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Appellate courts weigh the overall fairness of the trial against the nature of the error before exercising discretion to reverse.
…informs us that the President occupies a "unique position in the constitutional scheme," including responsibilities for the administration of justice, foreign affairs, and management of the Executive Branch. Ante , at 749-750. True as this may be, it says nothing about why a "unique" rule of immunity should apply to the President. The…
…of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1944) 185. [^maj-10]: See Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice
…discretion of the court of appeals, and the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
…and a simple historical fact, the fact/law distinction at times has turned on a determination that, as a matter of the sound administration of justice
A constitutional error such as an improper burden-shifting comment may satisfy the first three plain error elements yet still fail the fourth prong if the trial as a whole remained fair. Courts require a showing that the error undermined public confidence in the judicial process.
Failure to object weighs against finding that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The plain error doctrine encourages timely objections so that errors can be corrected without appellate intervention.