## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 2468 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D I CK L. N OEL , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 06 C R 017

—Jo hn Dan ielTi nder , Judge .
A RGUED A PRI L 8, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 4, 2009

Befo reE A ST E RB ROO K, Chie f Judge, andK ANN Eand W IL L IA MS, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudge . Di ck N oelwas char ged with produci ng and posse ssing chi l d pornog ra phy i n vio l ation o f 1 8 U
. S. C
. §§ 2251(a) and 2252(a)(4)( B ). A j ury f o und Noe l g ui l tyo n al l c o unt s, a nd o n J une 1 , 2 00 7, the di st r i ctc o ur t se nt en ce d Noe l t o e ightyy ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en tt o b e f o l l o we d b y a l i fe t i me o fs up e r v i s e d r e l eas e. N o e l n o w a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n, a r g u i n g th a t ( 1 ) t he2 N o. 07

- 2468 dist ri ct c ourter re d in al l owing I nd i ana S tat e Po l i ce Dete ctiv e Je n n ifer B ar n e s t o t es tify th at ce rt ain im ag es in e vidence m et the federa l defi ni ti on o fchi l d pornog ra phy, an d (2) th e c ou rt ’s jur y in st ru c ti o n r eg ar d in g t h e d efin iti on of a “l asci vi ous exhibi ti on of the geni tals,” w hi ch wa s d e r i v e d fr o m U nited Sta tes v. D o st, 63 6 F
. S up p. 82 8, 832 ( S. D. Cal. 198 6), w as confusi ng to the j ury. N oelal so cl ai m s th ath i s se nt en ce was unr ea so nabl e an d tha t th e di s t r i c t j ud g e f a i l e d t o pe r s o na l l y a ddr e s s hi m a nd o f f er hi m the o ppo r tu ni tyto a ll o cut e. Al th o ug h we fi nd the gov er nm ent’ s a p p roach in subm i tting ce rt ai n evi dence at trialtroub ling, non e of th e errors below requ ire re ver salo fN oel ’ s co nvi cti on o r sente nce.

I. B ACK GR OUN D This case r epres ents eve rypare nt’ s wors t ni ghtm ar e. R u ss ell B ea u c h am p an d h is w ife, L or i B ee d i, c o n s c i ou sly d ec id ed to res tr ict t h e c a r e of th eir you n g s on , “H ,” on ly to f ami l y m em ber s. In k ee pi ngwi ththa t dec i si o n, B eau ch am p trust ed his step -b rothe r Dick N oel to care f o r H pe r i o d i c a l l y fr o m th e t i me H w a s t wo y e a r s o l d. N oel often sup ervised H overnigh t, inclu d in g every F r i da y . As the y e a r s p r o g r e s s e d, Be a uc ha mp a nd Be e di d i v o r c e d , a n d N o e l ’ s r o l e i n H ’ s l i fe i nc r e a s e d

. F o r e x a mp l e , N o e l wo ul d o ft e n c a r e f o r H w h e n B e a u c h a mp w as w or ki ng l ate , and he pro vi ded as si sta nce as H heal ed fro m a bro ken a rm suffer ed i n J uly20 05. Bu t a pol i ce invest i gat i on l at er r eve al ed that N oelwas no twor thyo fth e tr us ttha tBe a uc ha mp h a d b e s t o we d. On Ju ly 3 1, 20 05 , D et ec tiv e B r ian B ro u gh to n of th e M ar tinN o. 07

- 2468 3

These c onv ersati ons were not pub li shed to the j ury b ut w ere 1 re fer r e d t o in th e P re se n te n ce In v es tig a tio n R ep o rt (P S R ). Because they are notes se nti al to o ur analys is , w e will s pare the read er th e d esp icab le d etails. Cou nty, F l o r i da, S he r i ff’ s Depa r tmentb eg ani nv es ti g at i ng Phil i p Vand er hoff f or cri m es aga i nst chi l dren. A se ar ch ofVanderhoff’s com puter re veal ed l ogs fro m chat ses si ons w i th a perso n w i th the scr een nam e o f “dic k_no el 2003
. ” In thos e co nver sat i ons, “di ck_no el 2003 ” re fer re d to a “B L ,” m ea n in g “ b oy lov er ,” an d ce rt ain “p ics .” H e a l so described hi s r el ati onshi p w i th a boy nam ed H ; thi s co nver sat i on incl ud ed a descrip ti on o f var i ous s exual enco unters
. 1 T h e s c r e e n n am e w as reg ist er ed to a D ick N oe l in M i dd l eto w n, I nd i ana, w hose pers on al in for m atio n m at c h ed th at of th e a p p ella n t. B ro u g h t o n refe rre d th is in for m at i o n to th e In d ian a In te rn et C rim es A ga in st C h ild r e n T as k F or c e. A u th or itie s s ea rc h ed N oe l’s h ou se in A ugust 2 005, and sei zed se ver alpi ec es ofco m pu ter m edi a. The har d dri ve ofN oel ’ s c om p uterand sev er al com pu terdi sks co ntai ned ph oto gr aphs or gani zed into m an y fold er s, in c lu d in g o n e la b ele d “H ,” w h ich h eld photos that por tr aye d H nude and asl eep. The co m pu ter m ed ia al so con tained nu m erou s p hot os of oth er m inors engag ed i n sexual l y e xpli ci t co nd uct. A gr and j ury re turned a fou r- count ind i ctm ent a gainst N oelo n J anuary25 , 2 00 6. Counts o ne thr ough three c h ar ge d N oe l w ith p ro d u c t i o n of ch ild p or n og ra p h y in viol ation of 18 U

. S. C
. § 2251(a). Th ese th ree c o u nt s w ere4 N o. 07

- 2468 base d on te n al l ege dlyp ornogr aphic photos ofH that i nvest i gat or s had f ound d uri ng the s ear ch ofN oel ’ s ho m e. Count f our charg ed N oelw i th poss ess i on o fchi l d pornog

r aph y i n v i o l at i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 2( a)(4) (B)
. Thi s co unt wa s b a s e d n o to n l y o n th e t e n p o r n o g r a p h i c p h o t o s o fH, bu t also o n n u m erou s p hot os of oth er m inors. A j ury tr i alco m m enced on M ar ch 12, 20 07. As o ne o fi ts pr i m ary w itne ss es , the g o ve r nm en t cal l ed J enni ferBarnes , a detect ive w i th the Ind i ana S tat e Pol i ce who had conducted the for ensi c e x am i nati on o n the c om pu term edi a sei zed fr om N oel ’ s res i dence. Barnes ex pl aine d tha t sh e f o und n um er o us i m ag es tha t m etthe fed er al d e f i n itio n of ch ild p or n og ra p h y or ga n ize d in m ult i ple f ol ders on N oel ’ s co m pu ter sy ste m . S he the n described the gov er nm ent’ s e xhibi ts, expl ai ni ng how sh e co m pi l ed th em an d ho w the y r el at ed to e ac h ofthe charg ed counts. Barne s te st i fi ed th atthe g o ve r nm en t’ s Exhibi t N i ne conta i ned al l 24 6 im ages o fH thatwere f ound on N oe l’s com pu ter
. These i ncl ud ed not onl y the te n charged p hoto s, but al so num er ous phot os that w er e no t pornog ra phic, such a s cl ot hed ph oto s o fH i n outdoo r set ti ngs. These photos w er e a l l adm i tte d i nto evi dence wi th o uto bj ec ti o n. Ex hib i t s On e , T wo , a nd T hr e e c o nt a i ne d the p ho tos that form ed the basi s forco unts o ne thr ough three aga i nst Noel, r espect i vel y. B ar nes t ol d the j ury that these wer e d u p l i c a t e s o fc e r t a i n p h o t o s th a twe r e a l s o c o ntai ned i n Exh ibi t Nine. T he pro secuti on a ske d Barnes: “A n d t h e s e w er e, inyou r op in ion, alth ou gh th e jur y w illN o. 07

- 2468 5 b e m ak in g t h at d et er m in at i on , pic tu re s t h at fit w ith in federa l l aw ?” Bar nes r esponded affi rm ati vel y. Barne s st at ed th atthe g o ve r nm en t’ s Exhibi t F o urc o nta i ne d the pho to s o n Noe l ’ s co m p ut er tha t m etthe fe de r a l de fi ni t i o n o fc hi l d p o r no g r a ph y . S he de s c r ibed the f ol ders on N oel ’ s com pu ter f ro m w hi ch th e ph oto s ca m e an d i nf o r m ed th e j ur y that thos e f o l der s al so c o ntai ned ph oto s o fchi l d pornog ra phy th at w er e no t p resent i n the e xhibi ts
. S he l at ere xpl aine d t o the j ury th atExhibi t Fou r co nt aine d a l l pho to s r el ev an t to c o unt f o ur, the pos sessi o n c ha r g e, i nc l udi ngc o pi es o fthe p h ot os of H in E x h ibit s O n e th ro u gh T h re e. A ll in a ll, Barne s o pi ne d a t l ea sts i x t i m es d uri nghe r t es ti m o ny that the c harg ed photos were pornog ra phic. A t the close of eviden ce, the cou rt i ns tru cted the j ury r eg ar di ngthe de fi ni ti o n of“l as ci vi o us e xhibi ti o n o fthe g en i ta l s” i n the c ont ex t o fc hi l d po r no g r aph y, us i ngthe f ac to r s ar ti cul at ed i n D o st, 6 36 F. Su p p. a t 83 2. Dur i ng the gov er nm ent’ s cl osing ar gum ent, the pros ecuti on d es c rib ed so m e o fthe photos and argued, usi ng the D ost fac to rs , th at th ey ea c h fell w ith in th e d efin itio n of ch ild po r no g r aph y . De fen se c o uns elchos e no t to f o cus o n the photos, te l l i ng the j ury: I ’ m go i ng to gi ve you som e goo d new s. Y ou are not go in g t o h av e t o loo k a t t h os e p ict u re s a ga inin or der t o m ake up yourm i nd s about th i s ca se, b ec au se p eo p le, r ea so n ab le p eo p le, c ou ld p ro b ab ly d ecid e tha t thos e are m inors an d that that ’s porno g r a ph y . Pr o b ab l y c o ul d, a nd I ’ m n o t g o i ng to ar gue that. That’ s no t o ur i ssue.6 N o. 07

- 2468 I ns te ad, de fen se c o uns el, a fte r a ckno wl edg i ngtha t th e photos w er e “ hor ribl e, ” a rgued that there was not e no ugh e v i de nc e t o fi nd tha tNo e l h a d p r o du c e d o r know in gly posse sse d them

. S he the n re i ter ate d: “You don’t need to l oo k at these pictures aga i n. I m ean, yo u cer tai nl y c an if you want to , but f ro m o ur per specti ve, yo u d on ’t n ee d to .” Defen se c o uns ela l so c r i ti cized the po l i ce i nv es ti g at i o n, cl ai m i ngtha t th e det ec ti ve s f ai l ed to i nqui r e i nt o who ow n ed an d cr ea te d th e p or n og ra p h y. A s a p a r t o f th is cl ai m , co unselst ate d: “W here theywere loo king f or p ornogra p hy , they f ou nd porn ograp h y and they w ere d on e.” The j u r y r e t u r n e d a g u i l t y v e r d i c to n a l l c o u n t s . The dist ri ct c ou rthel d a se ntenci ng hea ring o n J une 1, 20 07. Atthe o ut s e to ftha th e a r i ng, the j ud g e s t a t e d: And I ’ l l no w hea r fi r stfr o m the g o ve r nm en t w ith r es pec t to i ts a r g um en t r eg ar di ngs en tenci ng, and then I ’llhearfro m the defe nse. A nd o fco urs e, M s. J ensen, as parto fthe defe nse pr es en ta ti o n, y o urc l i en t, M r . Noe l, ha s th e r i g ht to spe ak ; that i s, to sa y whateverhe wants t o say to hel p m e in deter m i ni ng wh at the s entence shoul d be. A fter the govern m en t’s pr esen tation, the d istri ct cou rt ask ed defense counsel, “M i ss J ensen, do y ou have a pr es en ta ti o n y o u’ d l i k e to m ak e r eg ar di ng se nt en cing and w oul d yourcl i ent l i ke to add re ss m e?” Defe nse c ounselbegan by readi ng a l ett erthat N oelhad prepar ed. S he expl ain ed thatN oelhad prov i ded herN o. 07

- 2468 7

A ltho u g h N oe l d id no t na m e this friend in the letter, defen se 2 c ouns elar gue d duri ng closi ng a rg um en t s thata m an who re gul ar l y fi xe d N oe l ’ s c om put erwas r es pons ibl e f or the phot og rap hs. wi ththe l et te r t o o l at e f o rthe pr o ba ti o n offi ce r t o i ncl ude i t i n th e PS R, but sh e no ne th el es s fel t it m ight b e a p p ro p ria te to sh ar e w ith th e c ou rt
. I n the l et te r, Noe l ne ve r a dm itte d t o hi s co nduc t. The l ett erst ate d that Noelwas not aw ar e o ft h e m at er i alo n hi s co m pu terand descr ibed how his tr ust had be en betr aye d by a n unnam ed fri end. N oe l w ro te: “He had 2 m y c o m puter, a s m y ment o r, s etup th e pas swo r ds, he ev enc ha tt ed unde r my c ha t na m e. He h ad th e r un o fthe house thre e t o f our days a week. ” N oelexpl ai ned that ot h er m in or s a n d B ea u c h am p h im se lf ha d st ay ed ath is house and that “ [ t] hey a l so w i tness ed that nothing questio n ab le e ve r h ap p en ed .” N onethel ess , N oelapol ogi zed i n th e l ett er, st ati ng,
“ Ido wa ntto a po l o g i z e f o r a l l the p a i n thi s h a s c a us e d. Igr i eve f oral l o fm y f am ily w ho fel t thi s t rustwas betr ayed b y me. Ifee l the i r pa i n v ery de eply . ” H e ex p l a i n e d th a t wo r d s f a i l e d t o e x p r e s s h i s “ d e e p l o v e ” f o r H, and he sai d that “ w hen Ithi nk t hat o ur wond er ful re l ati onshi p has now had the shadow cast o n i t, i t ca uses my v e r y s o u l t o h u r t
. He a l o ne , o th e r th a n my s e l f, kn o ws the pur i tyo fo urt en - y ea r r el at i o ns hi p. ” The l et te r c o ncl ud ed by re questi ng a m er ci ful sente nce. A fter defen se co u ns el’ s p resen tation, the d istri ct cou rt consi dered the l ett erbut ult i m at ely co ncl ud ed that an8 N o. 07

- 2468

An a c c e pt a nc e o fr e s po ns ibili t y a dj us t m e ntwou l d h a ve 3 resu lted in a tw o-p oin t d ecre ase in the to tal o ffense lev el. See U
. S. Sen t e n c ing G u id eline s M an u al (U .S. S.G .) § 3E 1.1. Bec au se N oe l w as five l e v e l s a b ov e the hig he st offen se lev el, this w ould no t have had an im pact on hi s guid el ines s ente nce. T h e g u id el in es ra n g e fo r o ffen se le v el s 4 3 a n d h ig h er is li fe 4 i n pr i s on . W he r e , a s h e r e , the g ui de l i ne s r a ng e e x c e e ds the st atutory m a xim um , the s tatutory m axi m um becom es th e g u id el in es sen te n ce . U .S.S .G . § 5 G 1 .1(a ). ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility ad j u st m en t w as ina p p ro p riate
. The dist ri ct cour t deter m i ned that the l ett er was 3 i nconsi ste nt w i th st ate m ents N oelm ade to l aw enf or cem en t an d w as “a d en ial of th e ver y th in gs th at w ou ld c on st itu te ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility .” The dis tr i ct c ourtappli ed a b ase o ffense l eve l o f48 , with a c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y l e v e l o fI
. T h i s r e s u l t e d i n a r e c o mm en d ed g u id elin es se n te n c e o f th e s ta tu to ry m ax im um

— o ne hun dr ed y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t. Af te r c o n- 4 s i de r i ngthe s e nt e nc i ngf a c t o rs enu mer a t e d in 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 553( a) , the dist ri ct c ourtim p ose d a be l ow-gui del i nes sen te nc e o fe i g hty y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t

— t we nty - fi ve yea rs f or e ac h ofco unts o ne thr ough three , and fi ve yea rs f orco unt f our, to be ser ved co nsecuti vel y.

II. A NA LYSIS N oelchal l enges hi s co nvi cti on o n appeal, cl ai m i ng tha t th e d ist ri ct c ourter re d i n al l owing cer tai n aspect s o f Barnes’ s t est i m ony and i n i nstr ucti ng the j ury base d onN o. 07

- 2468 9 the D ost f acto rs . H e a l so appeal s hi s se n tence as unrea son a ble and argue s tha t he w as no t given th e op p ortu ni tyt o a l l o cut e. W e di sc us s ea chi ss ue i n tur n.

A. Noel ’s Chal l e nges t o His Convi ct i on N oe lc l ai m s that Dete cti ve Barnes re nd er ed an i m perm i ssib l e l e g a l c o nc l us i o n tha tthe g o v e r nme nt ’ s e xh ibi ts m et the federa l defi ni ti on of chi l d pornog ra phy. H e a l so ar gues that thi s e rr orw as exacerbate d by the di str i ct co ur t’ s pur po r te dl y “ m uddl ed an d c o nfus ing” j ur y i nstr ucti on defi ni ng “l asci vi ous e xhibi ti on o fthe geni tal s” us i ng th e f ac to r s des cribed i n D o st, 63 6 F
. S up p. at83 2. W e fi nd e r r o r i n Barn es’ s te st i m o ny b utno t th e j ury i nstr ucti ons. Because the e rr ordi d not a ffect N oel ’ s s ubstanti alr i ghts, however, hi s co n victi on wil l be a ffi r med

.
1. Testim o ny of D etectiv e B a rnes At Noe l ’ s tr i al, Ba r ne s te st i fi ed r epe at edl y tha t th e i m age s o n N oel ’ s co m puter m et the federa l defi ni ti on ofchi l d pornog ra phy. S he pro vi ded no expla nati on fo r thi s o pini on, but i nstea d offer ed onl y c oncl usor y s tat em en ts. W e fi nd the gov er nm ent’ s e xplanat i on f orth is tes ti m ony tr oubl i ng and ag re e with N oe l that i t was im p rop er. U n d er t h e F edera l Rule s o fEvi dence, te sti m ony i s no t obj ecti onabl e s ol el y “ beca use i t e m bra ces an ul ti m ate i s s ue t o b e d ec i de d b y the t r i e r o ff a c t
. ” F e d. R
. Ev i d.10 N o. 07

- 2468 70 4(a ); se e also U nited States v. Wantuch , 52 5 F
. 3d 505, 51 3 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 8). B u t thi s r ule “does notl ower the bar s s o as to ad m it al l op inions.” Fed

. R. Evid

. 704 ad visory c o mmi t t e e ’ s n o t e . T h e e v i d e n c e mu s t b e o th e r wi s e a dm iss ible as lay te st im on y u n d er R u le 7 01 , U ni t e d S ta te s v. B a skes , 649 F.2d 471 , 478-79 (7th C ir. 1980), or exp ert te st im on y u n d er R u le 7 02 , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc avo , 59 3 F
. 2d 837, 84 4 ( 8th Ci r . 1 97 9)
. M o sti m po r ta nt l y f o r o ur pu rpos es, the tes ti m ony m ust be hel pfulto the tr i ero f f a c tu n d e r e i th e r r u l e . F e d

. R
. E v i d

. 7 0 4 a dv i s o r y c o mm itt ee ’s n ot e; see also Fe d. R. Evi d. 701(b) , 70 2. W e ha ve he l d r epe at edl y that l ayt es ti m o ny o ffer i ng a l ega l co ncl usi on is i nadm i ssibl e be cause i t i s no t h elp fu l to t h e jur y, as req u ire d b y R u l e 70 1(b ). Se e, e . g. , Wan t uch , 52 5 F
. 3d at 514 ( hol ding that the quest i on o f w hetherthe defe nd ant kne w h i s a cti ons w er e l ega l “de m an ded a co nc l us i o n a s to the l egalityo f[ th e defen d an t’s ] co nd uct, wh i ch i s unhel pfulto the j ury und er R u le 7 0 1 ” ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Es pi no , 32 F. 3d 253, 25 7 ( 7th C ir. 1 9 94) (“[ T ]he q ue stion p osed to Esp ino, ‘[ Y ]ou’re admi tt i ngthe c o ns pi r ac y, a r en ’ t y o u, ’ r equi r ed a co ncl usi on r eg ar ding the l ega l i m pli cati ons ofhi s co nd uct. Espino’ s l ay an sw er to thi s quest i on was ther ef or e obj ec ti o nabl e as b eingunh el pfulo pi ni o n test i m o ny a nd sh ou l d h av e b ee n ex c lu d ed .” (se c on d alt er at ion in o rig inal ) )
. Thi s i s be cause a l ay w i tness ’ s p u rp ose i s t o in for m th e jur y w h at is inth e e vid en c e , n o t t o t ell it w h at infe re n c e s t o d ra w from th atev id en c e. See U nited St at e s v. Gr i nage, 39 0 F
. 3d 746, 75 0 ( 2d Cir

. 20 04)
. Once th e ev i den ce i s pr es en te d, the j ur y i s ca pab l e o fe xa m i ni ng it a n d d e t e rm in in g w h et h er it su p p or ts a c on vic tio n ; i tN o. 07

- 2468 11

The record reveal s thatBarnes was offer ed in part as a f act 5 witness t o e xpl ai n the c our s e ofthe pol i c e i nve s t i gat i on and in par tas ane xpe rtwitne s s . The br ea dthofhe r ex per t i s e is disputed, how ever. N oel cl aim s thats he w as only offered as an ex pe r t i n c omput e r f or e ns i c s . Th e go ve r nme nt, on the other han d, c l ai m s thats he was al s o an ex per ti n c hi l d por nogr aphy , poi nt i ng t o h ere xt en s i ve ex per i en c e i n the s e i nve s t i gat i ons and h ert es t i m ony thatsh e was f am i l i ar with the fede ra l an d I ndi ana defi ni t i ons ofc hi l d p ornog ra phy. W e ne ed n ot reso lv e this co nflict be cau se o f o u r find ing tha t, in an y ev en t, Bar ne s ’ s t es t i m ony was unh el pful t o the j ur y. does not need l ay tes tim on y to ass i st i n m aking tha t d et er m in at ion
. C

f. Wantuch , 52 5 F
. 3d at 51 4 ( “T he j ury w as j ust a s ca p abl e a s [ the witness] o fi nfe rr i ng tha t W an t u c h k n e w h e wa s c o mmi t t i n g a c r i me , wi th o u t[ th e w itness opinin g] as to w he th er W a n t uc h w as aw are th at his con d uc t w as il legal. ”). B arn e s ’s testim ony that the p hot os foun d i n N oel’ s ho m e m etthe fede r alde fi ni ti o n o fc hi l d porn ogr aph y amoun te d t o noth i ngmor e th ana s ta te m en t th atthe p hot os w ere il leg al. Given prop er i ns tru ctions , the j ury was c apabl e o fmakingthi s det er m i na ti o n o n i ts o wn. T h is t es tim on y w as u n h elp fu l to t h e ju r y as lay te st im ony and i na d m issible un d er Ru le 701(b). The g o vernm entc l ai m s th atthi s r ul e i s i r r el ev an t b ec au se B ar n es w as p re se n te d as an ex p e r t a n d h er te st im ony w as ad m iss ibl e under Rule 702. But eve n i fBarnes w as proper l y qual i fi ed as an exper t, herte sti m ony does 5 no t pas s m us te r unde r Rul e 70 2 be cause i t was no12 N o. 07

- 2468

N oe l cites Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Th o ma , 7 2 6 F .2d 11 9 1 (7t h C ir . 19 8 4 ), 6 f or the p ro pos i t i on t hatw he the r phot os ar e c hi l d por nogr aphy is an in a p prop ri ate topic f or ex pert t es ti m ony altogether. W e ne ed n otr ea c h this issue , an d we e xpr es s no opi ni on regarding w hetherBarnes’ s tes tim ony w ould hav e been ob j e c t i on a bl e i fo the r wi s e pr op e r l y s ub s t a nt i a t e d. m or e hel pfulas exper t t esti m ony than i t would have been as l ay tes ti m ony. I n herte sti m ony, Barnes ga ve no ba si s whatsoe ver f orherco ncl usi on that the i m age s on N oe l’ s co m pu ter wer e ch i l d po r no grap hy un derthe fede r alde fi ni ti o n.
“ An e xp e r twh o s up pl i e s n o thingb uta b o t t o m l i ne s up pli es noth in g o fvalue to the j ud i ci alpro cess . ” M id-St ate Fer ti lizer C o. v. E xch. N a t’ l B ankof Chi. , 87 7 F
. 2d 1333 , 1339 ( 7th Ci r. 198 9). W e hav e there f or e desc ribed an expert ’ s o pini on that l acks pro per substa n tiati on a s “w or thl ess . ” M i nas i an v. St anda r d Char t e r e d B a nk, 10 9 F. 3d 1 21 2, 12 16 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)
. Thus, ev en tho ugh ex per t wi tn es ses m ay o pi ne o n ul ti m at e i ss ue s o fthe cas e, u nd erRule 70 2 thei r opi ni ons m ay not be di vor ced f ro m t he e xp e r tb a s e s tha tqua l i fi e d the m a s wi tne sse s in th e first p l ac e. U nite d State s v. Hall , 93 F. 3d 1337, 1344 ( 7th Cir. 1996). Barne s’ s “e xpe r t” t es ti m o ny that the pho to s m etthe defini ti on o fch ild p or nogr aphy w as a ba re co ncl usi on that provi ded nothi ng but the b ott om line , i
. e. , that N oelposs ess ed i l l ega l photo s. H ad Barnes provi ded so m e ba si s f o r thi s ex pl an at i o n, perh aps he r t es ti m o ny w oul d hav e been of som e use f or the j ury. But she did not 6 do s o . S he , i n e ss en ce , t o l d the j ur y no th i ngmor e th an,N o. 07

- 2468 13

This begs the quest ion ofw hy the le gal pho tos w ere prese nted 7 to the j ury in the fir stp lac e. N oel has notapp eal ed this i ss ue, so we need not decide w hetherthe adm is si on of thi s evidence w as p r op er, bu t w e see no reaso n w hy the g ov ern m en t cou ld no t ha v e sim p ly p resen ted the t e n illeg al p ho tos to esta b lish N oel’ s m oti ve. “Iam f am i l i arwith the defi ni ti on o f c hi l d pornog ra phy, a nd thi s me e t s tha tde fi ni t i o n b e c a us e Is a i d s o . ” R e g a r dl ess o fwh etherBarnes was an e x pert, she coul d not “m er el y t el l the j ury w hat r esul t t o rea ch. ” Fed. R. Evi d. 704 ad vis or y com m itt ee ’s n ot e; s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. G arci a , 413 F.3d 201 , 210 (2d Cir. 2005). A t o ral ar gum ent, the gov er nm ent’ s o nl y j usti fi cati on for th is testim ony w as th at it w an ted to i n fo r m the j ury that the gove r nm e ntkne w the di ffer en ce b etwee n the illeg a l a n d lega l p h ot os . A c c or d in g t o th e p ro se c u to r, in add i ti on t o the t en photo s forwh i ch N oelwa s charge d i n coun t s o ne thr o ugh thr e e , the r e mai ning 2 3 6 ph o t o s o f H p re s e nt e d t o the j ur y we r e l e g a l a nd di d notme et the defi ni ti on o fchi l d pornog rap h y. Counsel expl ai ned that these photo s w er e o ffer ed to sho w how m uch N oel loved H and to provid e a m otive forthe cr im e. She surm ise d th at j u rie s o fte n d o n o t u n d er st an d w h y c er ta in photos ar e no t i l l ega l ; as a re sul t, the gov er nm ent was att em pti ng to sho w thati t kn ew t he di ffer ence between l ega l and i l l ega l and that i t was no t at te m pti ng to convi ct Noelbas ed on the l ega lphoto s. 7 Bu t e ven if w e a ccept the go ver nm ent’ s r ati onal e, B a r n es’s testim ony did noth ing to help the j ury u nd er-14 N o. 07

- 2468

s t a nd whycer tai n photos were i l l ega l

. W i th su ch d am n in g e vid en c e a ga in st N oe l, th e g ov er n m en t w ou ld ha ve b ee n wel l s er ve d t o s i m pl y st i ck to th e f ac ts : pr es en t the c harg ed photos to the j ury an d al l ow itto r each i ts o wn co nc lus ions bas ed on th e cou rt’s ins tru ctions
. Pr o se cutors w ere certainly free to argu e tha t the ph otos w ere po r nog rap hi c, b utthe pr o perf o r um was i n the o pen i ng orcl osing ar gum ents, notduring the pre senta tion of ev id en c e. C

f. Ga rc ia , 4 13 F
. 3d at2 14 ( ex pl ai nin g tha t th e o pen i ngs ta te m en t i s th e pr o perv eh i cl e for the g o ve r nm ent t o hel p the j ury ga in an o ver vi ew o fthe evi dence an d theories of the case ). Mo r e o v e r, t o th e e x t e n tth a tth e g o v e r n me n tfe l tc o mpel l ed to e xpl ain i ts subj ec ti ve mot i va ti o ns o r the thought proce sse s o fi ts i nvest i gat or s, thes e con si derat i o ns a r e i r r e l e v a ntt o No e l ’ s g ui l to r i nn o c e nc e . Ind e e d, th e gove rnm ent’ s focus on the i nvest i gat or s’ subj ecti ve vie w s t o jus tify th is lin e o f qu es tio n i n g i s t ro u b lin g. In U ni t ed State s v. Cunn i ngh am , we hel d that det ai l ed questioning regard ing the proc ed ure s us ed to o btain cou rt author i zati on f orwir eta ps w as i nadm i ssibl e because i t was i rr el evantto the defe nd ants’ gui lt or i nnocence. 46 2 F
. 3d 70 8, 7 12 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. Ins te ad, we o pi ne d tha t th e ex pla nati on o fwh y the go ver nm ent di d w ha t it d id w as sim p ly a ba ck- doorway to sho w thatnum er ous g ove r n me n ta g e nt s b e l i e v e d th e d e fe n d a n t s w e r e c o mm itt in g c rim es , w h ich w as im p er m iss ible

. Id. at71 3. A l though the f acts i n thi s ca se ar e di fferent fro m tho se i n Cunni ngh am , we suspect that the gov er nm ent’ s m oti vati o n was s i m i l ar . The o nl ypl au sib l e r ea so n the g o ve r n-N o. 07

- 2468 15

T he o n l y ob jection s w ere to an y d escrip tion of the p ho tos. 8 D efense co u nse l arg u ed the p ho tos sp ok e for the m selv es, a nd the di s t r i c tc ou r ta gr e e d. m ent woul d w ant t o show that its investi gat or s be l i eve d th e photo s were i l l ega l was to per suade the j ury to agree. Bu t w it hou t a prop er exp lanation to help th e j ury f o r m tha t co nc l us i o n o n i ts o wn, thi s ty pe o ft es ti m o ny i s n o ta l l o we d. T h at B ar n es ’s tes tim on y w as im p ro p er is no t d i sp os iti ve ofthi s ca se, however

. B ecause N oeldi d not obj ect to B ar n es ’s c om m en ts attria l, ou r re vie w is for p lain 8 er ro r, “a n d w e w ill rev er se on ly i ft h e e rro rs res u lte d in ana ctua l mis carriage o fj us ti ce s uchtha t th e defen dan t probabl y would h av e been acqui tte d but f orthe er ro neousl y a dm i tte d e vid en c e. ” U nite d State s v. A vila , 55 7 F
. 3d 809, 819-20 ( 7 t h C ir. 2009) (qu otations om itted ). W e are convi nced thatN oelwould have been convi cted e ven i fBarnes had not been al low ed to te sti fy i m proper l y, a nd , the r e f o r e , r e v e r s a l i s n o twa r r a nt e d. For tu na te l y, we ar e ab l e to s par e th e r ea derthe pho to s’ s to m ac h- tu r ni ngde ta i ls to r ea cho urc o nc l usion, bec a u s e w e nee d not go beyon d de fense co un sel’s w or d s a t N oe l ’ s t ria l to d et er m in e t h at th e re su lt w ou ld have be enthe s ame wi th o utBa r ne s’ s te st i m o ny . Dur i ng h er clo sin g a rg u m en t, d ef e n s e co u n se l ex p licit ly to ld th e j ury t wi ce tha t th er e was no ne ed to r ev i ew the photos i n m aking it s d ete rm i nati on. S he sa i d that whe th e r th e p h o t o s we r e p o r n o g r a p h i c wa s “ n o to ur i ssue” and i nstea d argued that the go ver nm ent had16 N o. 07

- 2468 f ai l ed to pr o ve tha t i t w as N oel who ha d pr o duce d the pho to s. S he ev en co m m en te d th at “[ w]h er e [ th e gove r nm ent was] l oo ki ng f orpor nogr aphy, they f ound p or nogr ap h y.” Gi v e n th e f o c u s o f No e l ’ s c l o s i n g a r g u me n t a nd t he co nc es si ons b y hi s co uns el, he c anno t no w ar g ue tha t he w as prej ud i ced by Barnes’ s co m m ents. N ot onl y di d his att or ney c oncede that the photo s were pornog ra phic, but she di d s o in w h at w as l i kel y a del iber ate tr i al st ra te gy to sh ift th e j u ry ’s att en tio n aw ay fro m t h eir co nt en t. Noe l ’ s so l e f o cus a t tr i alwas kno wl edg e, i
. e. , he cl ai m ed that so m eo ne e l se ha d pr o duce d the pho to s an d th at h e d id n ot know they w ere on h is com p ut er. B ar n es’ s i m propero pini on that the photo s were pornogr aphic ther ef or e di d not r esul t in a m ani festm i sc a r r i a g e o fj us t i c e s uc h tha tr e v e r s a l i s wa r r a nt e d.

2. The DostJury Ins t r uc t i on N oel cl aim s t h a t the h arm resulting from Ba rnes ’s im p rop er testim ony w as ex acerb at e d by a confu sing j ury i nstr ucti on defi ni ng chi l d pornog ra phy. The di str i ct cour t pr ovi ded the j u rywith the f ol l owing i nstr ucti on ba se d o n the l an g ua g e i n D o st, 63 6 F
. S up p. at83 2: I n deter m i ni ng wh ethe r a vi sualdepic ti on i s a “l asci vi ous exhibi ti on ofthe ge ni tal s o r pu bi c ar ea ofany p er son, ” there ar e a num bero ff acto rs f or you to consid er. Th ose fa c tors includ e bu t are not l i m i ted to : (1) w h et h er th e fo c al p oin t o f th e p ict u re is the m i nor ’ s g eni tal i a o r pu bi c ar ea;N o. 07

- 2468 17 (2) w h et h er th e v isu al s et tin g o r p os e is sex u a lly sugg estive, th at is, i n a p lace or a pose general l y a sso ci ate d w i th se xual acti vi ty; ( 3) wh etherthe m i nor ’ s pos e i s unnatura l o r wh e the r the mi no r i s dr e s s e d in i na ppropri ate at ti re gi ven hi s/her age ; ( 4) wh etherthe m i nori s par ti al l y o r fully . . . nude; ( 5) wh etherse xual coy ness orw illi ngness t o e ng a g e i n s e xu a l act i v i t y i s s ug g e s t e d; an d ( 6) w he th erthe v i su alde pi ct i o n i s i ntended ordesi gned to el i ci t a s ex ual r esp ons e in the view er. The go ver nm ent i s no t re quir ed to prove ea ch of these f acto rs i s pre sent f ora vi sualdepic ti on [ to] be a “ l as c ivio u s e x h ibit ion of th e g en ita ls or p u b ic a r e a . ” T he de t e r mi na t i o n wi l l h ave t o b e ma de base d on the ov er allco ntent ofthe vi sualdepic

tion, taking into ac cou nt the age of th e m inor. N o elc l ai m s th at th is ins truct i o n was “ co nfus i nga nd m u d d led .” H e arg u es th at “la sc ivio u s” is a “ c om m on se n sic al t er m [th at ] n ee d s n o a d or n m en t.” W e typi cal l y r evi ew j ury i nstr ucti ons deno vo , but gi ve th e di st r i ctc o ur t su bs ta nt i aldi scret i o n t o f o r m ul at e th e i nstr ucti ons “so l ong as [ they] r epres ent[ ] a com ple te and cor re ct s tat em ent o fthe l aw . ” U nited St at e s v.18 N o. 07

- 2468 M at t he ws , 505 F. 3d 698, 704 ( 7th Cir
. 2007 )
. Ou r re vi ew in thi s ca se i s m or e defer enti al, however

. N oeldi d not obj ect to thi s j ury i ns tr ucti on a t t ri al, so we re vi ew f or p lain err or , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 47 9 F
. 3d 485, 49 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) , a s ta nda r d tha t i s par ti cul ar l y l i m i te d i n the c on te x t o fju ry ins tr u c tio n s, U nited Sta tes v. P eters , 43 5 F
. 3d 74 6, 7 54 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 6)
. To war r an t r ev er sa l, “ ‘ [ t] he er ro r [m u st ] b e o f su c h a gr ea t m ag n itu d e t h at it p robabl y c hanged the outco m e o fthe tr i al

. ’ ” Id. ( se co nd al ter ati on in or i gi nal ) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 11 5 F.3d 134 8, 1362 ( 7th Cir. 1997)). A s w e hav e note d , w he re th er e is n o ob j ec tio n attria l, “[i]t is th e ra r e ca se in w hi ch an i m proper in structi on wil l j usti fy r eve rs alo f a cr i m i nal co nvi cti on. ” Id. ( qu otations om itted ). The r e ha s be ens o m e deb at e amongc o ur ts r eg ar di ng th e p r o pr i e t y o fj ur y i ns t r uc t i o ns b a s e d o n the D o st fac to rs . C o m pa re U nited Sta tes v. R ivera , 54 6 F
. 3d 2 45 , 25 0- 53 ( 2d Cir

. 20 08) ( hol ding that the D ost f acto rs , alth ou gh i m perfect, ar e a n a c c urat e s tat em ent o fthe l aw and that j uror s “ need neutr alr efer ences and consi derat i ons” w h en int er p re tin g t h e w or d “la sc ivio u s” ), and U nited St at e s v. Vi l la rd , 8 85 F. 2d 11 7, 1 22 ( 3d Ci r . 1 98 9) ( “[ T] he D ost f ac to r s pr o vi de sp eci fi c, s en sibl e m ea ni ngt o the term ‘l ascivious , ’ a term w hich is less than crystal clear. ”), w ith U nite d State s. v. Frabizio , 45 9 F
. 3d 80, 88 (1st C ir. 2006 ) ( noti ng tha t the D o st f acto rs have re sul ted in “ d isp ut es tha t ha ve l ed co ur ts f ara fi el d fr o m the s ta tu tory l anguage ” a nd that“the D ost tes t ha s p ro d uced a pro

f oundly i ncoher ent b ody o fcas e l aw ” ( quotati ons om i tted )), and U nite d State s v. H il l , 33 2 F
. S up p. 2d 10 81, 10 85N o. 07

- 2468 19 ( C.D. Cal

. 20 04) ( “W hi l e the D o stf acto rs at tem pt to br i ngo r de r a nd p r e di c t ab i l i ty t o the l a s c i v i o us ne ss in q u iry , th ey are h igh l y m alle ab le a n d su bj ec tiv e in th eir ap p li cation
. ”). M uc h of th e d ebat e o v e r D o sti nvol ves a c oncern thati s o fno hel p to N oel

— tha t the f a c t o r s l i ste d m ay be t oo g enerous to th e d efe n d an t. R ivera , 54 6 F
. 3d at 25 1; s e eal s o, e . g. , Frabizio , 45 9 F
. 3d at 88 ( “[ T]h er e is a ri sk that the D o stf acto rs wil l be used to i napp ro pri ate l y li m it th e scop e of th e statu tory d efi nition.”); U ni t e d S t ate s v. Wi egand, 81 2 F
. 2d 1239 , 1 24 4 (9 th Ci r. 19 87)
. S ti l l o ther c om m en ta ry h as su gg es te d , ho w ev er , t h at in c er ta in case s, so m e D ost fac to rs m ay be ov er -i n c l u siv e. Se e, e . g. , R ivera , 54 6 F
. 3d at 252 ( “[ I ] fthe si xth f acto r w er e t o f ocus on the defendant’s subj ecti ve re acti on t o the photo

gr aph, as o pp os ed to the photog ra ph’s i ntended effect, a se x u aldevi ant’ s qui rk s co uld turn a Se ar s ca tal og into p ornogra p hy

. ” (qu otations om itted ))
. W e hav e no t y et tak en a posi ti on o n w hetherthe D o st f acto rs r epres ent a p er m i ssibl e instr ucti on, and w e nee d not do so today. E ven ifim proper, the i nstr ucti on d oes not ris e to the l eve l o fpl ai n er ro r because i t was unl i ke ly to have i nfl uenced the j ury’ s v er dict

. A s descr ibe d above , defe nse c ounsela dm i tte d that the o utcom e o fthe case d id not tu rn on th e issue of w he th er th e p ho t o s w ere pornog ra phic; i t turned on Noel ’ s know l edge. N oel c on c e d ed th at th e p h ot os w er e p or n og ra p h ic a n d to ld th e j u r y i td i d n o tn e e d t o l o o ka tth e m. F o r t he s a me re as on th at B a r n e s’s im p ro p er te st im on y d oe s n otm er it re ver sal, nordoes the D ost in str ucti on: the outco m e o f the t ri alwould not have been differ ent without i t.20 N o. 07

- 2468 B
. Noel’s C halle nges to his Se nte nce N oe l also ch alle n ge s h is s en te n c e, cla im in g t h at (1) it w as ex cess ive and un reason able; an d ( 2) the d istri ct cou rt er re d in fa ilin g t o p er so n al l y a d d re ss h im an d giv e h im the o pp or tuni ty to al l ocute
.
1. R easo na bleness W e ca n qui ck l y di smi ss Noe l ’ s ar g um en t tha t hi s se nte nc e was unr ea so nable. A s en te nc e th atf al l s wi th i n a p ro p er ly c alc u lat ed gu id elin es ran ge is p re su m p tiv ely re as on ab le. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ykyt i uk, 415 F. 3d 606, 608 ( 7th C ir. 20 05 ). N oton ly is N oe l’s s en te n c e p re su m p tiv ely re as o nab l e u nd e r tha tr ul e , b uti twa s a c t ua l l y t wenty yea rs b e l ow the gui del i nes sente nce of one hund re d year s’ i m pri sonm ent. In or der t o re but the pre sum p tio n of r e a s o n abl e n e s s , No e l mu s td e mo n s t r a t e th a tth i s b e l o wg ui del ines se nt en ce was unr ea so nabl e i n l i g hto fthe fac to rs s et fo rt h in § 35 53 (a). See id
. H e has f ai l ed to do s o. Fi rs t, N oel cl ai m s that the m ostappropr i ate se ntence i s a st ructur ed tr eat m ent pr ogr am in cl ud i ng psycho

ther apy an d m edi cati ons. H e cl ai m s that the i m posed pri son sente nce does not m eethi s nee ds and notes that an eighty-year sen ten ce am ou nt s to l ife in prison for a m an o fhi s a ge . B ut the dist ri ct c ourtco nsi dered the se argu m en ts in i ts § 3553 (a) an alysis, and non e of th em are su ffici en t to override its w ell -reasone d sen ten ce. N o e l’s acts were unspeakabl e. H e be tr aye d Beaucham p’s tr ust by p rod uc ing p ornogra p hy w h ile caring for B eau ch am p ’s y o u n g so n . H e a m as se d a tr em en d ou s a m ou n t o f ch ildN o. 07

- 2468 21

I n h i s r epl y br i ef, Noel obj ec t s t o the gover nm en t ’ s rel i anc e on 9 th i s ch an g e b eca u se he cla im s he w as sente nc ed to alm ost thr ee ti m es the st atut or y m ax i m um . H e c or re c t l y no t es thatthe statu tor y m axi m u m for p ro d u ction of child p or no g rap hy is thi rty years, w hil e he w as se ntence d t o ei ghty. Bu t the s tatutory m axim u m is thirty ye ars f o re a ch c o unt
. Noel was c onvi c ted of thr ee c ount s ofpr oduc i ng c hi l d p or no gr aphy an d was s en tenc ed to t w enty- five years p er c ount. H e was als o convict ed ofposs es si ng chil d p ornograp hy and s ente nced to five years f or that c harge. H is s ente nce i s ther ef o re a lm ostthr ee t im es the s t atut or y m ax i m um f or prod u c i ng c hi l d por nogr aphy because he w as convict ed of thre e c ounts ofthato ffense . N oel (co n tin u ed ...) pornog ra phy thro ughout hi s l ife. Consi deri ng the se t r o ub ling f acts , w e find no error i n th e d istri ct cou rt’s det er m i na ti o n that N o el ’ s co nduc t war r an te d a l en g th y pri son sente nce. N oe l also arg u es th at h is s en t e n c e w as u n re as on ab ly dispr opor ti onate to thato fo therdefendants co nvi cted o fth e s a me o ffe n s e , b u twe fi n d th i s a r g u me n tu n c o nvincin g. W e h ave h eld th at “[w ]hil e com p arisons are appr o pr i at e, . . . [ i ] t i s no t en o ug h f o r a defen dan t to a r g ue th at a few ca se s . . . see m to ca std o u b t o n h is s en te n c e.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ne wsom , 428 F. 3d 685, 689 ( 7th C ir . 2 005). I ns te ad, “ we hav e a sy st em o fi ndi vi dual i ze d s en te nc i ng [ that] ta kes i nto acco unt f acto rs o therthan the type o f c r i me. ” U n i t e d Sta tes v. C a ven der, 22 8 F
. 3d 792, 80 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0)
. Fu r th er m o r e, the s ta tu to r y pe na l ti es a nd g ui del i ne s se nt en ce s f o r pr o ducingchi l d po r no g r aph y ha v e r e c e nt l y i nc r e a s e d. C o m pa re 18 U
. S. C. § 2 251( e) ( 2007 ) 922 N o. 07

- 2468

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 do es not ar gue that conse cuti ve se ntence s w er e i napp ropriat e. I fa nythi ng, thi s det ra c t s fro m hi s ar gum en tthathi s s en tenc e was disproportio n a te because the s tat is ti cs upo n w hich he re li es likely incl ud e def endan ts s erving s ente nces f or a si ngle offense . ( i m posi ng a m axi m um se nten ce o fthi rty y ear s in pri son for p ro d u c tio n of c h ild p or n og ra p h y), and U .S.S.G § 2 G2. 1( a) ( 2007 ) ( i m posi ng a ba se offense l eve l o fthi rtytw o f orvi ol ati ons of18 U
. S. C. § 22 51 ), w i t h 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 251( d) ( 2002 ) ( i m posi ng a m axi m u m s entence o f tw enty yea rs in p ri son f orpro du cti on o fchi l d pornog ra p h y), and U
. S. S. G § 2G2 .1(a ) (200 2) ( i m posing a base o ffe ns e l e v e l o ft we nty - s e v e n f o r v i o l a t i o ns o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 251)
. S entencing st ati sti cs that i n c lu de defe nd ants se n te n c ed p rior to th es e c h an ge s t h er efo re h av e litt le pr o b at i v e v a l ue . Wi th a l l the s e c o ns i de r a t i o ns i n mi nd , w e co ncl ud e that Noel ’ s s entence was re aso nabl e.

2. Al l oc ut i on W e nex t turn t o N oel’ s argu m en t tha t the district cou rt er r ed i n de ny i ng hi m th e r i g htt o a mean i ng fula l l o cut i o n. B ec au se N oe l d id n otob j ec t a t s en te n c in g, ou r re vie w is ag ain fo r p l a i n err or . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lu epke, 49 5 F
. 3d 443, 446 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. To p revai l, N oelm ust dem onst ra te that a pl ai n er ro r occur re d that a ffecte d his subst anti al ri ghts. Id. at44 8. I fhe m ake s thi s s how i ng, “we m ay r ev er se , i n a n e xe r ci se o fdi sc r eti on, i fwe det er m i ne that the e rr or ser i ousl y affect[ ed] the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, o rN o. 07

- 2468 23

A s B arnes re c ogni ze d, the ho l di ng i n Gr e e n w a s o rig ina lly 10 co d ifie d a t R u l e 32 (a )(1). S eeFed. R
. Crim
. P. 32 adv is ory com m ittee’s no te (1966 A m en d m en ts)
. A ltho u g h th e R u le has su bs equen t l y be enr eo rg ani ze d, i t s appl i c at i on f or our pu rposes rem ains unch a n g ed

. S ee Fed

. R. Cri m . P. 32 adv is ory com m ittee’ s n ote ( 20 02 A m en d m en ts) ( stating tha t, u nless o th er w ise n o te d , ch a n g es w er e i n te n d ed to b e st y lis tic o n ly ). pu bl i c rep utati on o fthe j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” Id. ( quotations om itted ).

a . Wheth er P la in E rror O ccu rred I n G reen v. U nited Sta tes , 3 65 U. S
. 3 01 , 3 04 ( 19 61 ) , the Suprem e Cour t r ej ecte d the vi ew thati nvi ti ng defense cou ns el to sp e a k a t sen ten cing sat isfied th e d efend an t’s right to ad d ress th e cou rt and all ocu te. I ns tead , the C ou rt hel d that b ef or e i m posi ng a sente nce, a tr i alj u d ge m ust add re ss the defendant pe rs onal l y a n d o ffe r h i m t he o pp or tu n ity to sp ea k. Id. Thi s ho l ding w as l ate r codi fi ed in Fed eral Ru le ofCrim inal Proced ure 32(i )( 4)(A )( ii ). See U nite d S t a t e s v. B a rnes , 948 F.2d 325 , 328 (7th C ir. 1991 ). 10 A t the o utseto fN oel ’ s s entencing, the dist ri ct j ud ge add re sse d N oel ’ s co unseland sta ted, “[Y ]ou r cl i ent, M r . No e l, h a s th e r i g h tt o s p e a k

. ” Aft e r th e g o v e r nm en t m ad e it s p re se n ta tio n, th e c ou rtas ke d d efe n se co u n se l, “M i ss J ensen, do y ou h ave a pr ese ntati on y ou’ d l i ke to m a k e r e g a r di ng s e nt e nc i ng a nd wo ul d y o ur c l i e nt l i k e t o address me?” Noe l ’ s co uns elr es po nde d b y r ea di ng24 N o. 07

- 2468 al o ud a l et te r tha t N o elha d a ddr essed to the c o ur t. The go v e r nme ntc l a i ms tha tthi s wa s a s uffi c i e nto pp o r t unit y to all ocu te u n d e r Ru le 32. W e can not agree. T he record i s cl earthatthe dist ri ct c ourtad d re sse d defens e co unsel an d a sk ed “w oul d y o urc l i en t l i k e to a ddr es s m e? ” but th e c o u r td i d n o td i r e c t l y a d d r e s s t h e d e fe n d a n th i mse lf. T h is is c on tr ar y t o th e la n gu ag e o f R u le 3 2 a n d co n st itu tes p lai n error. I n ar gui ng that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s co m m ents sat i sfi ed Rul e 3 2, the go ve r nm en t r el i es o n Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 25 8 F
. 3d 66 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) , a nd U nite d Sta te s v . Franklin , 90 2 F .2d 50 1 (7 th C ir. 19 90 ). H ow ev er , n e i t h er ca se is su p p ortive
. In Wi l l i a ms , the dist ri ct c ourtsa i d at s entencin g, “M r. W illiam s, is th er e a n yt h in g t h a t y o u w ou ld like to s ay?” 25 8 F
. 3d at 674. W e hel d that thi s s ati sfi ed Rul e 32 ’ s r equi r em en t th atthe c o ur t addr es s th e d efend an t pe rson all y beca us e “it [ w as] clear that th e cou rt ad d re ss ed W illiam s h im se lf, noth is l awye roran y o the rrepre s e nt at i ve . ” Id. at67 4-7 5 (e m p h as is a d d ed ). Sim il ar l y, i n Franklin , the di s t r i c tj ud g e a s k e d b ot h defense counseland the defe nd ant i fei thero r b oth of them had a s tat em ent they wis hed to m ake

. 90 2 F
. 2d at 5 0 7
. We h e l d th a t th i s wa s s u ffi c i e n t b e c a u se t he re c or d ind ica te d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtj u d ge ex p l i c i t ly ad d re ss ed th e d efe n d an t. Id. Unl i k e i n Wi l l i ams a nd Franklin , the re cor d i n thi s ca se m a k e s c l e a r th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r twa s a d d r e s s i ng N oel’s co unselo nl y. H e be gan e ach st ate m ent b y r efer ring to “M iss Je n sen, ” a nd then advi sed wh at he rc l i e nt ha d the right to d o. In al l of these ad d resses, the cou rtN o. 07

- 2468 25

re fer re d to N oelo nl y in the thi rd per son. In re sponse to the dist ri ct cour t, J ensen m ade her prese ntati on (w hi ch w as const ructe d m uch as an al l ocuti on) , but the di str i ct cour t nev err etur ned to N oelto a sk hi m di re ctl y whether h e w ou ld li ke to sp eak. A lthou gh the m istake is un d ersta n d ab le give n the re adingo fN oel ’ s l ett er, thi s i s no t th e t yp e o f p er so n al a d d re ss th e r u le u n eq u ivo c ally re quir es. The S upr eme Co ur t’ s o wn l an g ua g e i n Gre e n i s in str uctive : “Tr i alj ud ges befor e s entencing sho uld, as a m att er ofgo od j ud i ci aladm i ni str ati on, unam bi guousl y a dd re ss them sel ves to the d efendant. H er eaftertr i alj ud ges shoul d l eave no ro om f ordoubt th at the defendant has be eni ss ue d a pe r so na l i nv i tat i o n t o s pea kpr i o r t o s en te nc i ng . ” 36 5 U. S. a t 305
. S ucha “ per so na l i nv i ta ti o n” w as lacking he re, an om issi on th at con stitut ed plain error.

b. W hethe r the E rror Affe cte d Noel’s Subst antial R ights W e no w tur n to the questi on ofw hetherthi s pl ai n er ro r affec te d Noe l ’ s su bs ta nt i al r i g ht s. I n th e o r di na r y c as e, the def e nd a nt ’ s b ur de n o fs ho wi ngtha ta n e r r o r a ffe c t ed hi s subs ta nt i al r i g ht s r equi r es a demons tr at i o n of pr ej ud ice
. Luepke, 4 9 5 F
. 3 d a t4 5 0

- 5 1
. B u twh e n, a s h e r e , the er ro r vi ol ate d the ri ght to al l ocute , w e “presum e pr ej ud i ce when th er e i s an y po ss ibi l i tytha t th e defen dan t w ou ld have r ecei ved a l ess erse ntence had the di str i ct cour t heard fr om h i m befo re i m posi ng se ntence. ” Id. at45 1. I n Luepke, we em phasi ze d t he di scr eti onar y nature of se n te n c in g w h en ex p lain in g th e rea so n in g beh in d t h is26 N o. 07

- 2468 pr es um pti o n. Id. W e no ted that“[ i ] n a pos t- B o o k er wor l d

. . . [ i ] two u l d b e a l mo s ti mpo s s ib l e t o d e t e r mi ne whethe r, i n the co nt ex t o fthe a dvi so r y g ui del i ne s an d the c ourt ’ s ba l anci ng o fthe sta tutory s entencing f acto rs , a d efe n d an t’s st at em en t, th at w as n ev er m ad e, w ou ld have alt er ed the concl usi ons ofthe sente nci ng co urt. ” Id. Thu s, wh en dete rm i ni ng wh ether Noel ’ s s ubstanti al righ ts wer e affec te d, we do no t spe cul at e as t o whathe m ay h av e s aid , no r d o w e t ry to d et er m in e w h et h er it w oul d have b ee n pers uasi ve. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. O ’Ha lla ren , 505 F. 3d 633, 636 (7th Cir
. 2007) (“[ W ] e ca nnot spe cul ate as to the pe r su as i ve abi l i tyo fa ny th i ng O ’H all aren m ay ha ve said in his state m en t to the cou rt. ”); Luepke, 49 5 F
. 3d at 45 1 ( expla i ni ng tha t a pre sum pti on o f pr ej udi ce “ av o i ds o urs pec ul ati o n abo utwhatthe de fen d an t m igh t h av e s aid h a d t h e rig h t b ee n p ro p er ly afforded him ”). W i th th e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n min d , w e c a n n o tc o n c l ud e th atNoe l woul d ha ve r ec ei ve d the sam e s en te nc e ha d he been aff or ded the opportunity t o al l ocute
. A l though Noel ha s no t su bmi tt ed th athe woul d ha ve s ai d a ny th i ng differ ent than w hat he w ro te i n hi s l ett er, al l owing counsel to speak in N oe l ’ s s tea d does no t cur e the prej ud i ce st em m in g fro m th e v iola tio n of h is rig h ts
. Se eGr e en , 36 5 U. S
. a t 30 4. As the S upr eme Co ur t ha s su g g es te d, “ [ t] he m ost p ersu asive cou ns el m ay not be able to spe ak for a defen dan t as th e defen dan t m i g ht , w ith ha lti ng e l o qu e nc e , s pe a kf o r h i mse l f

. ” Id

. In other w or ds, i t i s no t o nl y the c o nt en t o f the defen dan t’ s wor ds th atc ani nfl uence a co urt, but al so the way he say s them

. N oelhas ther ef or e e stabl i shed that the c ourt ’ s f ai l u re to addressN o. 07

- 2468 27 hi m per sonal l y was pl ain e rr orthataffecte d his substa nti alr i ghts.

c. The Fai r ne s s , Int egr i ty, an d Pub l i c Rep ut at i on of Judi ci al Proc e e di ngs Tha t N o elha s establ i sh ed pl ain e r r o r do es no t en d o ur i nquir y, f or our deci si on of w hether to cor re ct that er ro r i s di sc r et i o na r y . W e ex er ci se th atdi sc r et i o n a nd r emand on ly ifthe er ro r ser i ousl y a ffecte d the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, or p u b lic re p u t a t i on of j u d icia l p ro c ee d in gs . Luepke, 495 F. 3d at 451. Al th o u g h w e h a v e o r d i n a r i l y r e ma nd e d i n c i r c u msta nc e s whe r e a de fe nd a nt ha s b e e n de ni e d the r i g htto allo c u te , U ni t e d S t at e s v. P itre, 504 F.3d 65 7, 663 (7th Cir. 2007 ) , the Suprem e Cour t has st ate d that a n err orsuch as th is “ is n ota fu n d am en ta l d efe c t w h ich inh er en tly re sul ts i n a c om ple te m i scar ri age o fj usti ce, noran om i ssi on inconsi ste nt with the rud i m enta rydem ands of f ai r proce du re , ” H ill v. U nited Sta tes , 36 8 U.S
. 42 4, 42 8 ( 1962 )
. “ Thus , the g en er alr ul e do es no t foreclos e th e possibi l i ty that the f acts o fa parti cul arcas e m ay com pel a co nc l us i o n tha t an y v i o l at i o n o fthe de fendan t’ s r i g ht to a l l o cut [ e] di d no t affec t se r i o us l y the f ai r ne ss o fthe j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” P itre, 50 4 F
. 3d at 663. Thi s ca se c o m p els such a co nc l us i o n. Al th o ug h the di st r i ctj udg e di d nota ddr es s th e defen dan t per so na l l y, he m enti oned N oel ’ s r igh t to al l ocute twicei n open co urt. M or eo ver, thi s i s the o nl y c ase we have e ncounter ed w here the defe nd ant’ s o w n w or ds w er e r ead al oud at28 N o. 07

- 2468

a s entencing hea ring. N oel ’ s le tter w as str uctured m uch as a n a l l o c ut i o n wo ul d h a v e b e e n, a nd every o ne att he hear i ng o ver l oo ked thathe ha d not per so n ally bee n aff or ded the opportunity t o speak. T h e err orwas ther ef o r e unde r stan d abl e, a nd i t i s di ffi cul t to f au l t th e distric t j ud ge f ornotr eco gni zi ng tha t a pro per al l ocuti on had n ot occur re d. Furtherm or e, N oel ’ s s entence was tw enty yea rs b e l ow the appli cabl e guidel i nes s entence , w hi ch i s p re sum pti vel y rea sonab l e and p er haps eve n l ow g i ve n the e g r eg i o us na tu r e o fNoe l ’ s cond uct. Underthe f acts o fthi s case , w e concl ud e that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s e rr or “di d no t i m pl i ca te [ th e] co r e va l ue s i n o ursent en cing p rocess , ” an d that the eq uity of that p rocess , both percei ved and appli ed, r em ai ns i ntact. Lu epke, 49 5 F
. 3d at 45 2; s e eal s o i d. at 45 1 (no tin g th e va lu e of allo c u t i o n in th e p e r c e i v e d e q u i t y o fth e s e nt e n c i n gp r o c e s s )
. We th er efo r e dec l i ne to ex er ci se o ur di sc r et i o n to r emand f o r r e s e nt e nc i ng, a nd No e l ’ s s e nt e nc e wi l l b e a ffi r med

.

III. C ON CLU SI ON I n c as es i nv o l ving s uchr epr eh en sibl e co nduc t, the govern m en t’s tena city i n p urs uin g a conv iction i s un d ersta n d able. B ut cases su ch as thes e requ ire even m ore cauti on t o ensure thatth e fai rnes s o fthe j ud i ci alpro ce eding s r emai ns i nt ac t so tha t th e r es ul tingc onvi ct i o ns and sen tence s a re so und

. I t i s up to the gov er nm ent t o pr es en t th e f ac ts a nd a l l o w the j ur y to do i ts j o b, wi th o ut r es o r tingt o t es ti m o ny tha t us ur ps th e j ury’ s func ti o n. A lthou gh Ba rnes ’s tes tim ony w as im p rop er, w e areN o. 07

- 2468 29 convi nced that the o utcom e would have bee n the sam e had i t be en excl ud ed. W e there f or e A F F I RM N o el ’ s co nv i cti o n. W e a l so fi nd t h at al though the di str i ct c ourtco m m i tte d pla i n er ro r du ring N oel ’ s s entencing, thater ro r did not affec t th e f ai r ne ss , i nt eg r i ty, o r pub l i c r epu ta ti on of the j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs, and w e A F F I RM N oel ’ s s entence
.

E A S T E RB R OO K, C hi e

f Judg e, c o nc ur r i ng . Al th o ug h the cour t ho l ds th at t he di str i ct j ud ge com m i tte d plain er ro r byf ai li ng t o “ addr es s th e defen dan t per so na l l y ” ab o ut allo c u tio n, as F ed . R. C rim
. P
. 3 2(i)(4 )(A )(ii) req u ire s, it al so decl i nes t o re ver se, bec au se it i s v er y unl i kel y that the g affe a ffecte d the o utcom e. T h e j ud ge tw i ce invi ted al l ocuti on ( though when speaki ng to co unselr ather than N oel ) , and i n r es ponse co unselr ead al oud a l ett erthat N o elha d wri tt ent o th e judge

. Noe l e vi den tly tho ug ht th at so m et h in g c om p os ed in a d va n c e w ou ld p re s e n t h is p o s i t i o n b e t t e r tha n e x t e mpo r a n e o u s o r a l r e ma r k s . He ha s ne ve r c o nt en ded th athe di d no t know ofhi s r i g ht to spe ak on hi s o w n behal f, and he has neve r ass er ted that he would have sp ok en i fo nl y the j ud ge had rai sed th e subj ec t wi thhi m r athe r tha n c o uns el

. Ev enthe pl a i n e s t o f e r r o r s j u s t i fi e s r e v e r s a l o n l y i f a l l o wi n gt he deci si on to sta nd would i m pai r “the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty or pu bl i c r eputati on o fj ud i c ial proce edi ngs” ( U nited Sta tes30 N o. 07

- 2468

v. At ki ns on , 297U .S. 15 7, 16 0 ( 1 9 3 6 ) , q u ot ed inU nited St at es v . O l ano , 50 7 U.S
. 72 5, 73 6 ( 1993 ) )
. The i ntegr i ty and pu bl i c r eputa tion ofj ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs woul d be und er m i ned, ra ther than re i nfo rce d, i f thi s co urt re ver sed o n a c c o un t o f the di s t r i c tj ud g e ’ s i nc o ns e qu e nt i a l mi s s t e p. Iwri te separ ate l y t o q u es ti on the co ncl usi on o f U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lu epke, 495 F.3d 443 , 451 (7th C ir. 2007), th at, whenc o nduc tingpl ain-e r r o r r ev i ew o fa c o nt en tion th at th e d istri ct j ud ge violated Ru le 32(i )( 4)(A )( ii ), the c ourto fappeal s m ust “presum e pr ej ud i ce when ther e i s a ny poss ibi lity thatthe defe nd ant would have received a l esser s e n t e n c e had the d istri ct cou rt heard f r o m h i m b e f o r e i mpo s i ng s e n t e n c e . ” T h e r e a r e t wo p ro b lem s w ith th is s ta n d ar d : fi rs t t h e p re su m p tio nin defe nd ant’ s f avo r, and sec ond the pr oposit i on that “a n y p os sib ilit y ” o f p rej u d ice su ffice s t o e st ab lish p lain error. Eve n o n h ar m l es s- er r o r r ev i ew, the b urde n o fs ho wi ng prej ud i ce r est s o n th e d efendant, notthe pros ecuto r. S ee Ko ttea k o s v. U nited Sta tes , 328 U
. S. 750 (1946); cf. O ’Ne al v. M cAninch , 513 U.S
. 43 2 ( 1995 )
. I t i s s up posed to be ha rd er to show plain error ( w he n th e d e fend an t forfei ted the i ssue by f ailing to r ai se i t in the dist ri ct c ourt ) th an to sh ow h ar m les s e rro r (w h en th e d efe n d an t d id raise the i ss ue , a nd the j udg e wro ng l y r ej ec te d the a r g um ent)
. YetLu epkemake s i t ea si ert o r ev er se o n pl aine r r o r r e v i e w th a n o n h a r ml e s s - e r r o r r e v i e w. Only gr ave and prej ud i ci aler ro rs j usti fy r ev er salwh en the d efe n d ant di d not a l er t the di str i ct j ud ge to the pr oblem . See , e.g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. Young, 470 U
. S. 1 ( 1985 );N o. 07

- 2468 31 Atki ns on ; O l ano . D u rin g th e las t 20 y ea rs , c ou rt s of a p p ea ls have occa si onal l y decl ar ed that one orano therkin d of er ro r w ar ra n ts a m o d i f ied ru le, inw h ich p rej u d ice is presum ed

— an d so m et im es in w h ich rev er sa l follow s if the r e i s “ an y p o s s ib i l i t y ” tha tthe de fe nd a ntwa s a dver sel y affecte d. The Suprem e Cour t has di sapprove d th at ap p ro ac h . For e x am p le, w h en a c o u r t o f ap p ea ls decl ar ed that prej ud i ce woul d be pre sum ed i fal ternate j urors are p resen t d uring d eliberat ions, th e Sup rem e C ou rt re ve rs ed inO l ano a n d h eld th at th e d efend an t bears the b urden ofes tabl i shi ng prej ud i ce. W hen a c ou rt o f ap p eals conc lud ed that prejud ice i s p r e s u m ed i f a dist ri c tc o ur tf a i l s t o p r o v i de the de fe nd a ntwi th a l l o f th e i nf o r m at i o n r equi r ed byF ed. R. Cr i m . P
. 1 1, the S upr eme Cou r t r ev er se d an d he l d th at the defen dan t bear s the bur den ofsho w i ng prej ud i ce, U ni t e d St at e s v. Vonn , 53 5 U.S
. 55 ( 2002 ) , m eani ng th at h e w oul d not hav e pl ea ded g ui l ty ha d he r ec ei ve d the i nf o r m at i o n. U nited Sta tes v. D o m ing uez B enitez , 542 U
. S. 74 (2004). A nd wh en so m e co urts o fappeal s co ncl ud ed that a pros ecuto r’ s f ai l ure to kee p a p ro m i se i n a pl ea agr eemen t l e a ds t o r e v e r s a l un l e s s the pr o s e c ut o r s ho ws that th e r e i s “ n o p o s s ib i l i t y ” o fa n a d v e r s e e ffe c t, th e S u p r e me Court re pli ed that the defendant bears the burden of showing prej ud i ce. P uc k ett v. U nited Sta tes , 1 2 9 S
. Ct
. 1 4 23 ( 2009 )
. S ee al so U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ar cu s , 538 F. 3d 97, 10 2–05 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 8) ( S o to m ay o r, J
. , c o nc ur r in g ) ( que st i o ni ng th e second ci rcui t’ s doct rine thatprej ud i ce i s pre sum ed for ex p os t fa c to is s u e s, an d th atrev er sa l is req u ire d if ther e i s “ any p oss ibi l i ty” thatpre - enactm ent c onduct affecte d the ve rdi ct) , peti ti on f orcer t. fi l ed, N o. 08

- 1341
.32 N o. 07

- 2468 N ow iti s t rue thatO l ano and its s u c c ess or s s tat e that the defendant “o rdi nari l y” bear s the bur den ofes tabl i shi ng prej ud ice . Th i s l eave s o pen the pos sibi l i ty of p re su m in g p rej u d ice for s om e k in d s o ferr or . Ye t itis a l s o t r u e th a t th e S u p r e me C o u r t h a s n e v e r f o u n d i ta ppropri ate to pla ce the burden on the pros ecutor w h en re vi ew i ng under F ed. R. Crim . P . 52( b)

. A nd the J usti ces have neverso m u c h a s hi nted thata “no possibi l i ty of harm ” s tandard would be appropri ate f oran y kind o f er ro r. A sm al l cat ego ryo f“s tr ucturaler ro rs ” j usti fi es re ver salwitho ut in quir y into prej ud i ce

— f orexam ple , the par ti ci pati on bya j ud ge w ho does nothol d offi ce und erA rt i cl e I I I, se e Ngu y e n v . U nited Sta tes , 53 9 U.S
. 69 (2003), or dep rivation of th e ri gh t to cou ns el ofone’s choi ce, se e U nited Sta tes v. G o nz a lez -Lo pez , 54 8 U.S
. 14 0 ( 2006 )

—b u t n o on e t h i n k s t h at a vio lat ion of R u le 32( i ) (4)( A ) ( i i ) i s in the str uctural

- er ro r cate gory. W hen the standard ofr evi ew i s pl ai n er ro r, r eve rs ali s “ diffi cul t, ‘as it sh ou ld be .’ ” Pu cket t, 12 9 S
. C t. 14 29, quoti ng fro m D o m ing uez B enitez , 54 2 U.S
. at83 n. 9. Luepkej us ti fi ed tran sfer r i ngthe b ur dent o the p r o s e c u t o r, a n d a d o p t i n gth e “ n o p o s s ib i l i t y ” s t a n d a r d, b e c a u s e i ti s h a r d t o sh o w a n a d v e r s e e ffe c tfr o m a j u d ge ’s fa ilu re to ad d re ss th e d efe n d a n t p er so n ally

— r athe r tha n, s ay, a ddr es singc o uns eli n the de fen dan t’ s prese nce, wh i ch co nveys the s am e info rm ati on but does no t s a t isfy Ru le 32(i )( 4)(A )( ii ). Bu t the reason i t is ha rd to sho w i nj ur y i s th atv i o l at i o ns o fthe Rul e us ua l l y a re incon seq ue nt ial

. Th at a viol ation d id n ot affect an yon e’s b ehavi or

— w h ich m ay ex p lain w h y no one obj ecte d

— o ught not m ake reversa l th e norm . I t is instea d w hy a courtN o. 07

- 2468 33 ofappeal s s houl d al l ow the j ud gm en t to s tand. I t ca nnot be s o und t o s aytha t th e m o r e te ch ni ca l the v iol ation, an d the less li k ely any ad verse con seq ue nc e, th e m ore r ea d il y a c o ur t o fa ppea l s m us t r ev er se . Ev ery th i ng Luepke sa id ab ou t viola tio n s of R u le 32(i)(4 )(A )( i i ) co u ld h av e b ee n sa id

— and w as sai d, by the ni nth ci rcu it

— in Vonn a nd D o m ing uez B enitez
. B u t the Sup rem e C ou rt he l d tha t th e defen dan t m us t sh o w prej udi ce whenthe dist ri ct j ud ge f ai l s to supp l y the i nfo rm ati on r equi re d b y R ul e 1 1
. I f, f o r e xa mpl e , the de fe nd a ntkne w ( pe r ha ps ha vingb ee n t o l d b y c o uns el ) the i nf o r m at i o n onthe R ul e 1 1 l i s t, th e r e i s n o p o i n ti n t a k i n gth e p l e a a n e w. Just so w ith a viol at io n of R ule 32(i) (4)( A )( ii ). Lu epke s ho ul d b e o v e r r ul e d.

W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e, d i sse nti ng. Ij oi n m y c ol l eagues w hol eh ea r te dl y i n a ffi r m i ngNoe l ’ s co nv i ct i o n a nd ag r ee tha t an y e r r o r s th atmay ha ve o cc ur r ed dur i ng tr i alwere harm l ess due to the ove rwhelm i ng ev i dence of his egregious cond uc t. Iw rite separa tely , how ever, be ca us e I di sa g r ee wi ththe pa ne l ’ s co nc l us i o n tha t th e den i alo fhi s r i g htt o a l l o cut e di d notunde r m i ne the fair ness ofthe j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. Instea d, Iwou ld re m and f orr ese ntenci ng. In l i ght o fChie fJ ud ge E a s t e rb r o o k ’ s c o n c u r r e n c e , Ia l s o w r i t e t o s t r e s s th e i mport anc e of th e pr esum pti on o fprej ud i ce a ff or ded to a34 N o. 07

- 2468 defe nd ant who has b een deni ed the opportunit y to allo c u te , an d to reit er at e w h y t h e s ta n d ar d ad o p t ed in U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lu epke, 495 F.3d 443 ( 7th Cir. 2007), shoul d rem ai n the l aw o fthi s ci rcui t.

I. I n Luepke, we hel d tha t “in the vastm aj or i ty ofcas es, the deni alo fthe ri ght t o al l ocut[ e] i s the k i nd o fer ro r that un de r mi ne s the f a i r ne s s o fthe j ud i c i a l p r o c ess , ” b a s e d, i n pa r t, o n the rig ht ’ s pr ac ti ca l r o l e an d i ts e ffec t o n the

“ pe r c e i v e d e qu i t y o fthe [ s e nt e nc i ng ] p r o c e s s. ” Luepke, 495 F.3d a t 4 51 ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. B a rnes , 94 8 F
. 2d 32 5, 3 28 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 1)
. W e also st at ed th at“ [ a] bs en t so m e r a r e i n d i c a t i o n f r o m th e f a c e o f th e r e c o r d th a tt he denia l o fthis r i ght di d not i m pli cate thes e co re values, rese n tenci ng i s the appropr i ate j ud i ci alr esponse . ” Id

. at 452. In th is case, th e d istri ct j ud g e m en tioned N oel’ s right to all ocu te in ope n cou rt (albeit to his l aw yer); N oel’ s l aw yerr ead al oud, duri ng the sente nci ng hea ring, a l ett er No e l h a d wr i t t e n pr e v i o us l y ; a nd the j ud g e i s s ue d a se nt en ce t wenty y ears be l o w the 1 00

- y ea r g ui del i ne se nt ence . F o rthe se r ea so ns , the pa ne l c o nc l ude s th atthe er r o r di d no t “i m pl i ca te [ th e] c o r e va l ue s i n o urs en tenci ng pro cess . ” Op. at28 . I fi nd ea ch ofthes e points unpe r su as i ve , a nd Ia m no t co nv i nc ed th atthe y b r i ng thi s ca se w i thi n the narr ow categ or y o fcas es that do not re quir e r ese ntenci ng. The Supr eme Co ur t r ec o g ni ze d, i n U nited Sta tes v. G reen , th a t R u l e 32 , as t h en w rit te n, con ta in ed an “in flex ible r equi r ement ” th atthe di st r i ctj udg e addr es s th eN o. 07

- 2468 35 defe nd ant t o al l ow him the opportunity t o al l ocute
. 36 5 U .S . 301 , 303 (19 61 ). A n d , as t h e p an el n ot es , Ru le 32 ( i ) ( 4) ( A ) ( i i ) codi f i ed this h old in g b y e x p licit ly re quir i ng the j ud ge to personally offerthe de fen dan t th e opportunity t o al l ocute
. Thi s a m endm ent c l ar i fi ed whatthe S upr eme Co ur t ha d i nt i m at ed: tha t amb iguo us r efer en ce s o r i nv i ta ti o ns no t di r ected to the de fen dan t f ai l to pro tectthe ri ght to al l ocute , and, byexte nsi on, cas t d ou b t o ve r th e fa irn es s o f th e p ro c ee d in gs . S e e G r een , 36 5 U .S. at 3 04 ; se e also i d

. at 307-08 (Black, J

. , dissen ting) ( “[i ]t w oul d be wh ol l y a rt i fi ci alto r ega rd thi s op p or tuni ty as ha vingb ee n a ff o rd ed i n the abs en ce o fa s pec i fi c an d per so na l i nv itation to s pea k

. . . [ t] he v ery e ss en ce o fthe an ci en t co m m o n- l aw r i g ht

. . . ha s al way s be enthe put ting of t h e q u es tio n to th e d efe n d an t
. . . .”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. A d a ms , 25 2 F
. 3d 276 (3d C ir. 20 01) ( re m anding f or re sente nci ng a fter di str i ct j ud ge ask ed defe nse c ounsel i fde fen dan t want ed to exer ci se hi s r i g htt o a l l o cut e but did notas k defendant p ersonal l y)
. A l though, so m e m ay bel i eve that“vi ol ati ons ofthe Rule usual l y a re i ncon seque nt i al, ” Con c. Op. a t 32 , a n a ckno wl edg m en t o fthe defe nd ant’ s r i ght t o speak, pose d to hi s l aw yer, cannotbe equated with a perso nal i nvi tat i on t o the defendant to ad d ress th e cou rt. Relying on th e form er w ou ld req uire the defendant to i nterj ect i n an o ngoing co nver sat i on between the l aw yer s a n d the j ud ge that has t ake n pla ce thro ughout the pro ceedi ngs

— an unrea l i sti c expectati on i n an e n vi ro nm ent where the l aw yeri s a ssum ed to speak f orthe cl i ent. Ind eed, Rule 32 pl aces an a ffi rm ati ve du ty on the co urt to i nvi te al l ocuti on, av oid i ng the need f or d efend an ts to attem p t, on th eir ow n, to ask f or an op p or-36 N o. 07

- 2468 tu ni tyt o s pea k

. To no w c l ai m th at“ put tingthe que st i o n” t o d e fe n s e c o u n s e l s o me h o w p r e s e r v e s th e f a i r n e s s o ft he p ro c ee d in gs is atod d s w ith t h e p u rp os e o f th e ru le an d the Co ur t’ s pr o no unc ementi n G reen . N o r do Ib el i ev e th atNoe l ’ s l et te r s ho ul d a ll eviate o ur c on c er n s re ga rd in g t h e d en ial of t h e rig h t t o a lloc u te . In f act, i t s hould do j ust the o pp osi te. The r eco rd does not cl ear l y ind i cate the l ett er ’ s purpose , and i t e ven s ugges ts th atth e c h o i c e t o r e a d th e l e t t e r d u r i n gth e s e n t e n c i ng hear i ng w as not N oel ’ s. A t the hear i ng, th e d istr i ct c o ur tj ud g e s t a t e d: A l l r i ght. A nd M i ss J ensen [ N oel ’ s l aw yer ] , do y ou ha ve a pr es en ta ti o n y o u’ d l i k e to m ake r egar di ng sente nci ng and w oul d yourcl i ent l i ke to add re ss m e? To wh i c h No e l ’ s l a wy e r r e s po nd e d: I ’ m sorry, J udg e. M r . Noe l pr o vi ded m e wi tha le tt ermuch t o o l at e f o r the Pr o ba ti o n De par tment to in c lu d e itin t h e p re se n te n c e re p or t, b utb as e d on w ha t M iss Hela rt[th e pros ecu tor] has s ai d, Ithought i tm ightb eapp r opr i at et o s harewi t h y ou t oday

. ( emphas i s adde d)

. F r o m b o th the pa ne l ’ s an al y si s an d Chi efJ udg e Eas te rbr o o k ’ s co nc ur r en ce , o ne w ou ld th i nk th at N o el wro te th i s l et te r spe ci fi ca l l y f o r the sente nc i ng he aring. B ut his l aw yer’s statem en ts to the cou rt i nd i cate o ther w i se. N oel ’ s co unselsa i d that s he c hose to re ad the l ett eri n re sponse to the pr ose cutor ’ s co m m ents. Regar dle ss ofhow i t was stru c tu re d, the l ett erwas not M r. N oel ’ s a l l ocuti on, and, i n f act, the dist rict j ud geN o. 07

- 2468 37

s a i d tha ti t“ un de r l i ne [ d] th e de t e r mi na t i o n [ he h a d] m ade tha t [ an ] a cc ept an ce o fr es po ns ibi l i ty[ se nt encing red uc tion] w a s inap p rop riate. ” Th e letter, w hich N oel’ s l aw yerpro babl y s houl d have kept to hers el f, deni ed gui l t, sh i fted bl am e t o othe rs , and offer ed an apol ogyal l at the s am e t i m e. N oeldi d not r eceiv e an o pp or tuni ty to re tr act orev en m i tig at e som e o fthe l ett er ’ s s tat em ents; yetthe p a ne l s ug g e s t s tha tb e c a us e h i s wo r ds we r e r ead al oud i n cour t, the perce i ved f ai rnes s o fthe proce ss re m ai ns i ntact. Fo r a r i ght r oo ted i n Engli sh co m m on l aw , wh i ch aff or ds a defendant a fi nal o p p or tu n i ty to p re se n t in for m at ion in m itig at ion of h i s se n te n c e, G reen , 36 5 U .S. at 3 0 4 , a l et te r re ad by d efe n se co u n se l in re acti on t o the pr ose cutor ’ s co m m ents i s a poorsubsti tute. I t m ay have caused ev en m or e har m , and si nce N oeldi d not r ecei ve t h e opportunity t o al l ocute , Ido not believe that the letter con tr ib u t e d to prese rve th e pe rcei ved orappli ed f ai rnes s o fthe sente nci ng pro cess . Furtherm or e, Icannotag re e that Noel ’ s e i ghty- yea r sen ten ce, w hich w as tw en ty ye a r s below the ad visory gui de line s entence , so m ehow renders the proce edi ngs f ai r. The di stincti on be tw een a n ei ghty and 100- yea r se nt en ce is a s upe r fi ci alo ne . F o r Noe l, b o tha r e func ti o nal l y l i fe s entence s (Noel was fi fty- thre e y ear s o l d at the t i m e)
. H e a rgued that the ei ghty- yea r se n te nce was st i l l t o o hi g h a nd a sk ed f o r a r edu ct ion, w hi chthe d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied ba s e d , i n p ar t, on h is let te r. In th i s par ti cul arc as e, a s en te nc e be l o w the g ui del i ne ra nge sa ys l i ttl e about f ai rnes s. N oelco uld have r ecei ved a low er se n te n c e if h e a c c e p t e d r es p on sib ility or c ou ld have h ad hi s s entence s o n each count r un concurr entl y.38 N o. 07

- 2468 Cf

. A d a ms , 25 2 F
. 3d at 287 ( presum i ng p rej ud i ce in case s w here , b a s e d o n the f a c t s a ti s s ue a nd the a r g ume nts r a i s e d, the di s t r i c t cour tr e t a i ne d di s cre t i on to gr ant a low er sent en ce). Th e r i g h t t o a l l o c u t e b e l o n g s t o th e d e fe n d a n t, an d t he du ty i s pl aced squar el y o n the cou rt to ensur e he has the o pp or tuni ty to exer ci se i t. That e ver yone o ver l oo ked thi s s tep does notm ean we m ust do the s am e. Ido not bel i eve any oft h e fa cto rs to wh i ch the m aj or i ty poi nts i ns til l co nfi den ce tha t th e co r e va l ue s o fo urs en te nc i ng pr o c e s s a r e n o ti mpl i c a t e d. Lu epk e c o n t e mp l a t e d s o me rare i nstance s w h er e the deni alo fthe ri ght doe s no t re q u ire a j u d icia l rem ed y, an d I se e n o r e a s o n w h y t h is case f al l s into that narr ow categ or y.

II. That br i ngs m e t o the i ssue ra i sed i n ChiefJ ud ge Easterbro ok’ s co ncurr ence: the continuing vi abi l i ty o f Luepke ’ s p re su m p tio n of p rej u d ice in re vie w in g R u le 32(i) (4)( A )( ii i) viol ations. A s Istated e a rli er, the im p orta n c e o ft h e rig h t t o a lloc u te ca n n otbe m in im ize d . I t has be en r eco gni zed, i n com m on l aw , as ea rl y a s 1 689, that “the co urt’ s f ai l ure to askthe defe nd ant i fhe ha d anythi ng to sa y b ef or e s entencing was i m posed r equi re d re ver sal

. ” G reen , 36 5 U.S
. at30 4. A n d d espi te the v ast i m prove m ent in proc eduralpro tect i ons aff or ded to defen dan ts , the ri g htr emai ns a n i m po r ta nta spe cto fo ur se n t e n c i n g p r o c e e d i n g s , p r o v i d i n g d e fe n d a n t s wi th a fi nal o pp or tuni ty “to speako r prese nt anyi nfo rm at ion to m iti gate th e sen ten ce.” Fed

. R. Crim
. P. 32(i) (4)( A )( ii ).N o. 07

- 2468 39 A num bero fci rcui ts, inc l ud i ng o urs, have r eco gni zed the i m pla usibi l i ty ofpro vi ng prej ud i ce fro m a Rule 32 v i o lat ion, s e e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Haygoo d, 54 9 F
. 3d 1049 , 1 0 5 5 (6 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. C arruth , 5 2 8 F
. 3 d 8 45, 84 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Reyna , 35 8 F
. 3d 344, 35 2 (5t h C ir. 20 0 4 ) ( en ba n c ); A d a ms , 2 52 F
. 3d at2 87

- 88 , a nd wi th o u ta pr es um p t i o n i n f a v o r o fth e d e fe n d a n twe run the r i sk ofr educing the r ule a n d t he r i ght i t pr ote cts to a m eani ngl ess f or m al i ty. See U nited St a tes v. B a rnes , 94 8 F. 2d 32 5, 331 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) ( “[ T]he defe nd ant’ s r i ght t o be hea r d m us t ne ve r be r edu ce d to a f o r m al i ty
. ”)
. I t i s o ur du ty to en sure thatthe ri ght i s a ff or ded to all defe nd ants, w hi l e m aintai ni ng a carefu l bal ance b etween j ud i ci al effi c i e n c y a n d th e re d re ss of inj u st ice
. P uc k ett v. U nited Sta tes , 129 S. Ct
. 1423, 1429 (2009). Pl ai n er ro r re vi ew , outl i ned i n Feder alRule o fCri m i nal P ro c ed u re 52 (b ), m ain ta in s t h e a p p ro p ria te ba lan c e in m os t ca se s; h ow ev er , as th e Su p re m e C ou rtrec og n ize d in O l ano , ther e a re so m e instance s where er ro rs m ay be p re su m ed p rej u d icia l. U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ano , 50 7 U .S. 7 25, 735 ( 1993 )
. In that case , the Court found that a vi ol ati on ofRule 24 ( c) , which, atthe ti m e, r equi re d the di str i ct j ud ge to disc harg e a l ternate j u ro rs aft erthe j ury bega n del iber ati ons, was not the type o fer ro r that “affect[ s] su b st an tia l righ ts ind ep en d en t of its p rej u d icia l im p ac t,” an d th e C ou rtd ec lin ed to p re su m e p rej u d ice
. Id

. at73 7 ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. In U ni t e d St at e s v. Vonn , the Co ur t he l d th atv i o l at i o ns o fRul e 11 o fthe F ede r alRul es o fC rim i na l Pr o ce dur e ( r equi r i ngthe di st r i ctc o ur t to e ns ur e th ata pl ea i s k now ing an d v o l untary) w ere stil l su bj ect to p lai n error. 535 U
. S. 55 (2002).40 N o. 07

- 2468 One can ce rt ai nl y a rgue thatthe ri ght t o allocute i s no t m or e i m port ant th an t h e ri ght t o a j ury f re e fro m i m pr o peri nfl ue nc e, o r the r i g htt o e nt era kno wi nga nd vol untarygui l ty ple a. A nd the Suprem e Cour t’ s insi ste nce on the plain e rror s tandard o fr evi ew ( w i thout a pre sum pti on o fprej ud i ce) f ortho se vi ol ati ons m ay sugge st th at th e sam e sh ou ld ap p ly h er e. Se eReyna , 35 8 F
. 3d at 354- 55 ( J ones , J
. , co ncurr i ng) . H owever, Ido notbel i eve th es e c as es co m p el u s t o ab an d on ou r ap p ro ac h in Luepke

. Our deci si on t o a pp l y a pre sum pti on o fprej ud i ce i s ba sed notju st o n t he i m port ance o fthe ri ght, but al so b ec au se th e b u rd en w ou ld be alm os t in s u rm ou n ta b le f ordefendants. A ss essi ng the prej ud i ce c aused by the pr ese nce o f alternat e j urors d uring de lib e r a t ions w as a m uc h m ore m an ag eabl e ta ski n O lano

. The Co ur t co ns i der ed th e fact th at th e alternate j urors w ere instru cted not to p arti ci pate in the del iber ati ons and that the m ere pre sence ofthe j urors d i d not cr eat e a“s uffi ci ent r i sk ofa chi l l ” t o w ar ra n t a p re su m p tio n of p rej u d ice
. O l ano , 50 7 U.S
. at74 0- 41
. A defen dan t den i ed th e r i g htt o a l l o cut e, o n the o th erha nd, woul d ha ve t o t el l us , afte r the f ac t, whathe m i ght h av e s ai d m onths ear l i er, and he would al so have to c on vin ce us that the j ud ge coul d have r esponded f avo rabl y. W h at eve r sta tem ent he m ay have m ade, w hetheri t be a hear tfel t pl ea form er cy ora full

- fl edged ad m issi on an d accep tan ce of resp o n s ibili ty, is ofa differ en t c h ar ac te r w h en red u c ed to an ap p ella te br ie f . It i s hi ghl y s pecula ti ve

— w h o re al l y k n ow s w h atw ou ld ha ve ha ppen ed attha t m o m en t

— as i s a ny at tem pt to ass ess i ts i m pact o n a j ud ge w ho has si gni fica nt di scr eti on in m aking se ntenci ng deci si ons.N o. 07

- 2468 41 S i m i l ar l y, i n Vonn , a num b er ofi m port ant co nsi derat i o ns c o un s e l e d a g a i ns t a pr e s umpt i o n o f pr ej ud i ce o r any o therexce pti on fr om pl ain er ro r re vi ew . A l though Rul e 11 r equi r ed th e di st r i ctc ou r t j udg e to a ddr es s th e defe nd a ntdu r i ngthe p l e a c o l l o qu y, the s t r o ngi nt e re st i n c o nc en tr at i ngpl ea s i n t r i alc o ur ts a nd pr om oti ng fi nal i ty i n a s yst em heav i l y dependent on guilty pl eas add ed anotherdi m ensi on t o the b al ance b etween j u d icia l effic ien c y an d th e red re ss of i nju st ice
. See Vonn , 53 5 U. S
. a t 7 2-7 3. F ur th er m o r e, the pr ej udi ce t o a de fen d an t w ho alleges a Ru le 1 1 v iolation is the ent ry of a p l e a t h at w as n ’t m ad e k n ow in gly or v olu n ta rily. A tra d iti onalpl ain er ro r anal ysi s would pl ace t h e burden of proving prej ud i ce o n the defe nd an t, w h o i s in the best po s i t i o n t o kno w i fh i s p l e a w as vol un t a r y . P ut t i nga s i de the i m port ance o fthe ri ghts, Ise e a s ign ificant differ ence be twe ena rule tha t pl ac es the b ur deno n a de fen dan t w ho s eek s t o re nege on a n agr eem ent h e enter ed i nto, an d on e t h at req u ire s h im to t e l l u s h ow a j u d ge w ou ld h av e re ac te d to a p lea for m er c y. T h e rig h ts inv ok ed in O l ano a n d Vonn ar e s uffi ci entl y di stingui shabl e fro m th e rig h t t o a lloc u te th at th os e c as es s h ou ld n otca ll o urho l di ngi n Luepkei nt o que st i o n. The presum pti on we adopted i s no t a di re c t route t o au to m at i c r ev er sal a nd we ha ve no t pr o po se d, a t an y poi nt, thati t be tr eat ed as a structura l er ro r that j usti fi es re ver salwitho ut i nquir y into prej ud i ce. W e hav e si m plyappli ed a rebutta ble presum pti on du e to the p racti ca l di ffi cul ti es de fen dan ts f ac e i n e nf o r cingthe r i g ht d u rin g s en t e n c in g a n d on ap p ea l. Cf

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. S y me, 27 6 F
. 3d 131, 15 4- 55 ( 3d Cir . 2 00 2) ( applying a42 N o. 07

- 2468

Chi efJ udge Eas t erbro ok m ai nt ai ns i n h i s c onc urri ng 1 op inio n th at the b u rd en of show ing p reju d ice on ha rm less er ro r re v ie w re sts o n a d efe n d a n t, a n d , th er efo re , L u epke m akes it e a sie r t o re v er se o n p la in er ro r t h a n o n h a rm le ss e rr o r. I di s agr ee . The Su pre m e Cour t, i n K ott eakos v
. U n i te d S tat es , on ly p laced the b u rd en of pr ov ing ha rm l e ss erro r on d efend an ts co m p la in in g o f “t ec h n ic a l” er ro rs . 32 8 U .S. 7 5 0 , 7 6 0 -6 1 (19 4 6 ); se e al so O’N ea l v. M cA ni nch , 51 3 U .S. 4 3 2 , 43 9 -4 0 (19 9 5 ); Brec ht v. A bra hamson , 50 7U .S. 6 1 9 , 6 4 1 (1 9 9 3 ) (S te v en s, J., co n cu rr in g ). O ther w is e, iti s cl ear that the governm ent bears the bu rden o f p ro v in g h a r m l e s s e rr o r in cr im in a l ca se s. S hinsekiv. San ders , 12 9 S. Ct. 169 6, 17 06 (200 9). A ltho u g h there is no form al d efiniti on of the ter m , the Suprem e Court has referred to “tec hnical (co n tin u ed ...) presum pti on o fprej ud i c e forco nstr ucti ve am endm ents an d an aly zin g w h et h er th e g o ve rn m en t e ffec tiv ely r e b u t t e d th e pr e s u mp t i o n )
. Ia m m i n d fu l o fth e S u p r e me C ou rt’s rel uc tan ce to ex p an d the li s t of stru ctu ral errors an d am aw are tha t even cons titu t io n al err ors are norm all y s ubj ec t to a ha r m l es s er r o r a na l y si s. Butpl ac i ng th e bur deno n the g o ve r nm en t to de m o ns tr at e th e ab se n c e o f p rej u d ice is n oti n c on sis te n t w ith th is p rin c ipl e. I fthe de fen dan t ha d o bj ec te d i n the di st r i ctc o ur t, the g o ve r nm en t woul d b ea r the b ur deno fpr o ving th atthe er ro r w as h ar m les s. See Fe d . R. C rim . P. 52 (a); s e eal s o Vonn , 53 5 U .S. at62 ( i nter preting l anguage i n Rule 11 ( h) that tr a c k e d Rul e 5 2 ( a ) t o p r o v i de f o r “ c o ns i de r a t i o n o fe rr or ra i sed by a defendant’s ti m el y obj ecti on, but subj ect to an opportunity o n the Gover nm ent’ s par t t o car rythe burden of s h ow in g t h at an y er ro r w as h ar m les s” ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l l i a ms , 5 59 F
. 3d 60 7, 6 11 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. S hi ftingb ur den s 1N o. 07

- 2468 43

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 er ro rs ” a s “m at t ers c onc er ne d with the m er e et i que t t e of tr ia ls a n d w ith th e fo rm a lit ie s a n d m in u tia e o f p ro ce d u re . . . . ” B ru n o v. Un i te d S tat es , 30 8 U .S. 2 8 7, 29 4 (19 3 9 ); s e e a l s o U n i te d S t at es v. Fl anagan , 34 F. 3d 9 49 , 95 5 ( 10 th Ci r. 19 94 ) ( re fer ri ng to tech nica l erro rs as “err or s f or w hich ther e is no re aso na b le pos s ibi l i t y thatthe ve rdic tc oul d have be enaffec t ed” )
. I do n ot consi der a Ru le 32 v iol ati on m inor or inc onsequenti al; the ref ore, I wou l d a l s o pl a c e the bu r de n onthe g ov e r nme ntt o pr ov e the abs en c e ofpr ej udi c e on har m l es s e rr or r evi ew. The way I s e e i t, pl a i n e r r orr e m a i ns the m or e di ffi c ul ts t a nd a r d. of proof al one doe s not d isrup t the Sup rem e C ou rt’s att em pts to l i m i t the expansi on o fst ructur aler ro rs . W e ca nnot d en y th e i m port ance o fthe ri ght t o al l ocute and the s teps the di str i ct c ourtm ust t ake to enf or ce i t. G reen , 36 5 U.S
. at30 4. A s a prac ti calm atter, defendants ar e l ess l i kel y t o obj ect on thei r own wh en a j ud ge f ai ls to p ro vid e t h em w ith an op p or t u n i t y t o a lloc u te , an d if they do obj ect, the j ud ge w i l l pro vi de that opport u ni ty i n m o st ca se s. The m aj o r i ty o f appe al s we enc ou nter

— as has be en the cas e thus f ar

— w i l l co m e fro m pro ce eding s i n whi chthe d efenda ntmade no o bj ec ti o n. The nature o f t h e inquir y, however, i s s o specul ati ve th at, in alm os t a ll ca se s, th e d efe n d an t w ou ld n otbe ab le to pr o ve p rej ud i ce , a nd the r i g htwoul d no t be e nf or ced. Thi s i s an unacceptabl e r esul t fora ri ght that i m pl i ca te s th e f ai r ne ss o fs en te nc i ngpr o ce eding s. The st at e o f th e la w h as ev olv ed to giv e jud ge s s ign if i c a n t ly m or e di scr eti on in m aking se nten c in g deci si ons. A s a r es ul t, we sh o ul d b e m o r e sk eptical o fi m po sing44 N o. 07

- 2468 st an dar ds th atr equi r e us t o hy po th es i ze whata s en te nc i ng j ud g e wo ul d ha v e do ne i n a g i v e n s i t ua t i o n. Th e p r e s umpt i o n we a d o p t e d i n L u e p k e does not m ake the denia l o f al l ocuti on a st ructur aler ro r, nordoes i t a dvocate f or autom ati c r eve rs al

. I t re cogni zes that the ri ght i s m or e than an “u n en for c ed h on or co d e” th at j u d ge s m ay fol l o w in th eir d isc re tio n . U nited St at e s v. Le on , 46 8 U.S
. 89 7, 97 8 (1 9 8 4 ) (B r e n n a n, J., d is s e n t in g )
. T h e p r e s u m p t io n ofp r ejud i ce a l l ows the r i ght t o be e nfo rce d and p ro vi des a re m edy wh er e o ur p ro ceduralr ule s m ay have re nd er ed i t e ffecti vel y obso l ete. U n less the Suprem e Cour t s ays othe rwis e, Ise e no r eas on t o re vi si t Luepke

.

9- 4- 09