Opinion ID: 167382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard of Review/Waiver and Forfeiture

Text: 25 Mr. Teague did not raise in district court the challenges to the jury instruction and condition of release that he now raises on appeal. Ordinarily, when an error claimed on appeal was not presented below, we review the claim under the plain-error doctrine. Under that doctrine we will reverse the judgment below only if there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 732 (10th Cir.2005) (en banc). 26 But, despite a common misunderstanding to the contrary, not every unpreserved claim of error is entitled to plain-error review. Sometimes the alleged error was intentionally caused by the party claiming prejudice on appeal. For example, a defendant may seek to present to the jury a confession by an alleged fellow culprit. There may be components of the confession that could be damaging to the defendant, but the defendant believes that the overall impact would be quite favorable. The trial judge admits the confession into evidence. If the defendant is convicted, an appellate court will not reverse the conviction because of the admission of the confession (although, it should be noted, the defendant may have a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). The reason is that the defendant invited the error. Or, to be more precise, the defendant waived the right that was violated by admission of the confession: the right to confront the witnesses against him. To use the terminology of the Supreme Court in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), a party that has forfeited a right by failing to make a proper objection may obtain relief for plain error; but a party that has waived a right is not entitled to appellate relief. 27 In Olano the Court discussed the meaning of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), which now states: A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention. 1 Rule 52(b), said the Court, provides a court of appeals a limited power to correct errors that were forfeited because not timely raised in district court. 507 U.S. at 731, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (emphasis added). But the court distinguished forfeiture from waiver. Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. Id. at 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mere forfeiture, as opposed to waiver, does not extinguish an `error' under Rule 52(b). Id. If a legal rule was violated during the district court proceedings, and if the defendant did not waive the rule, then there has been an `error' within the meaning of Rule 52(b) despite the absence of a timely objection, id. at 733-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770, and the court of appeals may review for plain error, see id. at 734-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770. In contrast, when a legal rule has been waived, the deviation from the rule is not error, so Rule 52(b) does not apply. See id. at 732-33, 113 S.Ct. 1770. 28 We applied Olano in United States v. Hardwell, 80 F.3d 1471 (10th Cir.1996). A defendant in that case argued that he should not have been tried under two separate indictments at the same trial. See id. at 1487. We noted that the two cases had been tried together at his request and stated, A defendant cannot invite a ruling and then have it set aside on appeal. Id. Citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770, we said: Errors that are waived rather than merely forfeited through failure to object are not subject to plain error review. Id.; see United States v. Aptt, 354 F.3d 1269, 1281 (10th Cir.2004) (While there is no appeal from a violation of a waived right, the violation of forfeited rights may be reviewed on appeal under the limited conditions set forth in Olano. ). Other circuit courts are in agreement. See United States v. Wellington, 417 F.3d 284, 290 (2d Cir.2005); United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). 29 With these principles in mind, we proceed to address Mr. Teague's issues on appeal. In particular, we consider whether the errors he challenges on appeal were invited, and therefore waived. We begin with the conditions of his release and then turn to the jury instructions.