Opinion ID: 76397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plain-Error versus Harmless-Error Review

Text: 22 Before examining prongs three and four of plain-error review, we review important distinctions between plain-error and harmless-error review, which were expressly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Rule 11 context in Vonn. 23 Plain-error review differs from harmless-error review in two important respects. First, in plain-error review, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice or the effect on substantial rights. See id. at 58-59, 122 S.Ct. at 1046 (discussing differences between plain-error and harmless-error review); Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1778, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); United States v. Quinones, 97 F.3d 473, 475 (11th Cir.1996) (same). In harmless-error review, the government has the burden. See id. 24 Second, while both plain-error and harmless-error review consider whether a defendant's rights were substantially affected, plain-error review has the additional requirement that an appellate court then must decide whether to exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error. That discretion may be exercised only if the error also seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Vonn, 535 U.S. at 63, 122 S.Ct. at 1048 (applying Olano, 507 U.S. at 736, 113 S.Ct. at 1779 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in original)); Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467, 117 S.Ct. at 1549 (same). 25 We also discuss Vonn in more detail because it informs our analysis in this case. In Vonn, the district court failed to advise the defendant of his right to counsel at trial, and the defendant raised this Rule 11 error for the first time on appeal. 535 U.S. at 61, 122 S.Ct. at 1047. Nonetheless, the defendant in Vonn stressed that Rule 11 contains a harmless-error standard of review in Rule 11(h), 6 but does not contain a plain-error standard within Rule 11. Thus, the initial issue in Vonn was whether the plain-error standard contained in Rule 52(b) even applied to Rule 11 violations. The defendant in Vonn claimed that Rule 11(h)'s specification of [only] harmless-error review shows an intent to exclude the plain-error standard with which harmless error is paired in Rule 52. 7 535 U.S. at 56, 122 S.Ct. at 1044. 26 Although Rule 11 contains only a harmless-error review provision in subsection (h), the Supreme Court in Vonn expressly held that Rule 52(b)'s plain-error review still applies to Rule 11 errors. 535 U.S. at 74, 122 S.Ct. at 1054. After reviewing the history of Rules 11 and 52, the Supreme Court in Vonn squarely held as to Rule 11 errors that a silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plain-error rule and that a reviewing court may consult the whole record when considering the effect of any error on substantial rights. Id. at 59, 122 S.Ct. at 1046. 8 27 In rejecting the contention that Rule 11(h) impliedly eliminated plain-error review, the Supreme Court further noted that subsection (h) was added to Rule 11 to deal with a slip-up by the judge in Rule 11 colloquies, stating as follows: 28 The Rule [11] has evolved over the course of 30 years from general scheme to detailed plan, which now includes a provision for dealing with a slip up by the judge in applying the Rule itself. Subsection (h) reads that [a]ny variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. 29 Vonn, 535 U.S. at 62, 122 S.Ct. at 1048 (emphasis added) (alteration in original). The Supreme Court stressed that one clearly expressed objective of Rule 11(h) was to end the practice, then commonly followed, of reversing automatically for any Rule 11 error. Id. at 66, 122 S.Ct. at 1050. 30 In Vonn, the Supreme Court further explained that without plain-error review, a defendant could choose to say nothing about a judge's plain lapse under Rule 11 until the moment of taking a direct appeal, at which time the burden would always fall on the Government to prove harmlessness. Id. at 73, 122 S.Ct. at 1054. Without plain-error review, a defendant loses nothing by failing to object to obvious Rule 11 error when it occurs. Id. at 63, 122 S.Ct. at 1048. In concluding that Rule 52(b)'s plain-error review applies to Rule 11 error, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that [w]hen an appellate court considers error that qualifies as plain, the tables are turned on demonstrating the substantiality of any effect on a defendant's rights ; the defendant who sat silent at trial has the burden to show that his `substantial rights' were affected. Id. at 62-63, 122 S.Ct. at 1048 (emphasis added) (citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 734-35, 113 S.Ct. at 1778).