Opinion ID: 48990
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Valles' Due-Process Claim

Text: 109 Valles contends that the district court violated his constitutional right to due process by not allowing him to enter his plea in front of the jury. Valles acknowledges that he can find no case supporting this proposition, but insists that he has a constitutional right to plead before the jury.
110 The identification of a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause is a question of federal constitutional law and reviewed de novo. 16 As Valles failed to raise this issue before the district court, we review his claim for plain error. 17 Under plain error review, we may exercise our discretion to reverse a defendant's conviction if there is (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 18 An error is plain if it is clear under current law. 19
111 As Valles recognizes, there is no authority for the legal holding that due process entitles a defendant to enter a plea in front of a jury. Thus, even assuming without granting that Valles had a constitutional right to enter his plea before the jury, this right is not clear under current law and thus cannot constitute plain error. Valles' claim therefore fails.