NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being
done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.  The
syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared
by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.  See United
                                                                     ______
States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
______    ___________________

                       SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                    Syllabus

                          UNITED STATES v. OLANO ET AL.
                                       ____

     CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

         No. 91-1306.   Argued December 9, 1992 - Decided April 26, 1993

Two of the fourteen jurors selected to hear evidence in respondents' criminal
 trial were identified as alternates before jury deliberations began.  The
 District Court, without objection from respondents, permitted the alternates
 to attend the deliberations, instructing them that they should not
 participate, and respondents were convicted on a number of charges.  The Court
 of Appeals vacated respondents' convictions.  It concluded, inter alia, that
                                                             ___________
 the alternates' presence during deliberations violated Federal Rule of
 Criminal Procedure 24(c), which requires that alternate jurors be discharged
 after the jury retires to consider its verdict.  The court found that the
 alternates' presence in violation of Rule 24(c) was inherently prejudicial and
 reversible per se under the ``plain error'' standard of Rule 52(b). 
            _______

Held:  The presence of the alternate jurors during jury deliberations was not an
_____
 error that the Court of Appeals was authorized to correct under Rule 52(b). 
 Pp. 5-16.
   (a)  A court of appeals has discretion under Rule 52(b) to correct ``plain
 errors or defects affecting substantial rights'' that were forfeited because
 not timely raised in the district court, which it should exercise only if the
 errors ``seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
 judicial proceedings,'' United States v. Atkinson, 297 U. S. 157, 160.  There
                         _____________    _________
 are three limitations on appellate authority under Rule 52(b).  First, there
 must be an ``error.''   A deviation from a legal rule during the district
 court proceedings is an error unless the defendant has waived the rule.  Mere
 forfeiture does not extinguish an error.  Second, the error must be ``plain,''
 a term synonymous with ``clear'' or, equivalently, ``obvious.''  Third, the
 plain error must ``affec[t] substantial rights,'' which normally means

                                                                    I           

II                           UNITED STATES v. OLANO
                                          ____

                                    Syllabus

 that the error must be prejudicial, affecting the outcome of the district
 court proceedings.  Normally a court of appeals engages in a specific analysis
 of the district court's record to determine prejudice, and the defendant bears
 the burden of persuasion.  This Court need not decide whether the phrase
 ``affecting substantial rights'' is always synonymous with ``prejudicial'' or
 whether there are errors that should be presumed prejudicial.  Pp. 5-10.
   (b)  The language of Rule 52(b), the nature of forfeiture, and the
 established appellate practice that Congress intended to continue, all point
 to the conclusion that the Rule is permissive, not mandatory.  The standard
 that should guide the exercise of remedial discretion was articulated in
 United States v. Atkinson, supra, at 160.  The remedy is not limited to cases
 _____________    ________________
 of actual innocence, since an error may ``seriously affect the fairness,
 integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings'' independent of the
 defendant's innocence.  However, a plain error affecting substantial rights
 does not, without more, satisfy the Atkinson standard, for otherwise the
                                     ________
 discretion afforded by Rule 52(b) would be illusory.  Pp. 10-11.
   (c)  The Government concedes that the deviation from Rule 24(c) in this case
 was an ``error'' that was ``plain.''  However, that deviation did not
 ``affec[t] substantial rights.''  The presence of alternates during jury
 deliberations is the type of error that must be analyzed for prejudicial
 impact.  While their presence contravened the cardinal principle that jury
 deliberations shall remain private and secret, the purpose of such privacy is
 to protect deliberations from improper influence.  Whether a presumption of
 prejudice is imposed or a specific analysis is made does not change the
 ultimate inquiry:  Did the intrusion affect the jury's deliberations and
 thereby its verdict?  See, e.g., Parker v. Gladden, 385 U. S. 363 (per
                            ____________    ________               ____
 curiam).  Respondents have made no specific showing that the alternates either
 ________
 participated in, or ``chilled,'' the jury's deliberations.  Nor can prejudice
 be presumed.  The Court of Appeals erred in presuming that the alternates
 failed to follow the judge's instructions, see, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S.
                                                 __________    ______
 200, 206, and the alternates' mere presence did not entail a sufficient risk
 of ``chill'' to justify a presumption of prejudice on that score.  Since the
 error was not prejudicial, there is no need to consider whether it would have
 warranted correction under the Atkinson standard.  Pp. 11-16.
                                ________

934 F. 2d 1425, reversed and remanded.

 O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J.,
and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined.  KENNEDY, J., filed a
concurring opinion.  STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and
BLACKMUN, JJ., joined.