Also known as: plain error standard · plain-error rule · plain error rule · plain-error doctrine · plain error doctrine · plain error
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard of appellate review that permits correction of an unpreserved error when the error is plain, affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Perry Pratt stood trial for embezzlement in federal court. The prosecutor told the jury that Pratt had offered no explanation for missing cash and urged the panel to hold him accountable. Defense counsel stayed silent. On appeal Pratt argued the remark shifted the burden of proof. The court examined whether the comment constituted plain error affecting substantial rights even though no objection was made at trial.
Priya Prasad faced mail-fraud charges. The judge instructed the jury that it could treat her decision not to testify as evidence of guilt. Counsel did not object. After conviction Prasad raised the Fifth Amendment violation for the first time on appeal. The court assessed whether the instructional error met the plain-error threshold by affecting substantial rights.
In 1986, Guy W. Olano, Jr., and Raymond M. Gray were indicted in the Western District of Washington on multiple federal charges for their participation in a loan kickback scheme while serving on the board of a savings and loan association. Their joint jury trial with five codefendants commenced in March 1987. All parties agreed that fourteen jurors would be selected, with the two alternates identified before deliberations began. On May 26, 1987, shortly before the end of the three-month trial, the district court suggested allowing the two alternate jurors to attend deliberations without participating. The court raised the matter again the next day in an exchange with Gray's counsel. On May 28, the final day of trial, counsel for defendant Davy Hilling gave an affirmative response that all fourteen could deliberate, with instructions that the alternates not participate; Olano's and Gray's counsel were present and did not object. The district court instructed the jurors that the alternates would attend deliberations but must not participate. One alternate was excused during deliberations at his own request, while the other remained until the jury returned its verdict. Both Olano and Gray were convicted. Olano and Gray appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed certain counts for insufficient evidence and then considered the presence of alternate jurors during deliberations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c). Because no objection had been made at trial, the court applied a plain error standard, held that the violation was inherently prejudicial, and reversed the remaining convictions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the standard for plain error review by the courts of appeals under Rule 52(b).
View caseParker Phillips was tried for unauthorized computer access. After both sides rested, counsel handed the judge a written request for a good-faith security-research instruction without giving a copy to the prosecutor. The judge refused to consider it. Phillips appealed the resulting conviction. The court reviewed the refusal under the plain-error standard to decide whether it affected substantial rights.
Pablo Perez stood trial for insider trading. The court limited cross-examination of the government's key witness about a cooperation deal. Counsel objected once but did not renew the objection. After conviction Perez challenged the limitation on appeal. The appellate court applied the plain-error standard to determine whether the unrenewed objection preserved the issue or required reversal.
Portia Price was convicted after a bench trial. Twenty days later counsel moved for a new trial citing the judge's mid-trial comments that allegedly signaled disbelief in the defense. The motion was denied as untimely. On appeal Price argued the comments required plain-error review. The court examined whether the unpreserved bias claim satisfied the plain-error test.
Priscilla Parks was convicted of insider trading. While her appeal on evidentiary rulings was pending, decrypted logs surfaced suggesting the government's star witness may have shared only public information. Parks moved to vacate the judgment. The district court denied the motion. On appeal the court considered whether any trial errors warranted plain-error relief in light of the new material.
The defendant must show an error occurred. The error must be plain under current law. The error must affect substantial rights by creating a reasonable probability of a different outcome. The court must also find that the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings before exercising discretion to reverse.
Supporting sources
No. The comment must satisfy all four prongs of the plain-error test. Even if the remark is plainly improper and constitutional, reversal is not required when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and curative instructions were given.
Supporting sources
A court may notice plain error affecting a substantial right even if the claim was not properly preserved at trial. The error must still meet the four-part test, including a showing that it seriously undermined the fairness of the proceedings.
Supporting sources
…. . in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception," ante , at 865, the "substance" part of the equation demands that plain error be acknowledged and eliminated. Roe was plainly wrong—even on the Court's methodology of "reasoned judgment," and even more so (of course) if the proper criteria of text and tradition are…