Opinion ID: 52840
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Calverley

Text: In Calverley this court took the opportunity to revisit and clarify the issue of plain error in criminal cases in this circuit. 37 F.3d at 161. The court began by emphasizing the reality of procedural default, pointing out that a court will take notice of forfeited error only in exceptional circumstances. Id. at 162. Calverley relied on the then-recent decision in United States v. Olano , where the Supreme Court stated, [n]o procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right . . . may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion. . . . 507 U.S. 725, 731, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Based on Olano's reasoning, Calverley clarified the Fifth Circuit's standard for reviewing forfeited error in a criminal case. Under Calverley, a forfeited error is redressable only if a criminal defendant can show reversible plain error. The first element of this showing is error, which is defined as deviation from a legal rule in the absence of a valid waiver. Calverley, 37 F.3d at 162. Second, that error must be plain. Plain errors are obvious, clear, or so conspicuous that the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing [them], even absent the defendant's timely assistance in detecting [them]. Id. at 162-63 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Finally, the plain error must affect substantial rights. In most cases, the affecting of substantial rights requires that the error be prejudicial; it must affect the outcome of the proceeding. Id. at 164. The defendant bears the burden of persuasion. If the defendant cannot show a substantial right has been compromised, no remedy is available. [3] When the three elements of plain error are present, relief on appeal is discretionary, not mandatory. A court of appeals should exercise its discretion only when a plain error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Plain error affecting substantial rights, without more, does not warrant correction on appeal. Rather, appellate courts must determine whether the facts of the particular case warrant remediation. Id.