Opinion ID: 2960452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction on “Official Proceeding”

Text: The Defendants contend that even if the evidence sufficed to support their convictions, a new trial would still be required because the jury instructions were erroneous. They acknowledge, that, in the absence of an objection, our review is only for plain error. “[B]efore an appellate court can correct error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affect[s] substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655, 667 (2d Cir. 2001) (in banc) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). In its charge to the jury the district court defined the term “proceeding” as follows: The term “proceeding” is defined broadly to include all of the steps and stages in the performance by a government agency of its government functions. It includes investigations as well as other administrative functions, -13- like adjudications. The modifier “official” merely means that the steps and stages constituting the proceeding are taken in the course of conducting business that the agency is legally authorized to conduct. Although this portion of the charge may well have been too expansive, any error cannot be considered “plain” in view of the language this Court used in Gonzalez. Although we have declined to regard that language as dispositive of this appeal, it understandably pointed the District Court toward the formulation included in the jury charge. Under “plain error” review, the jury instruction does not require a new trial.