Opinion ID: 795993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fair Trial Claim

Text: 44 Firishchak also claims that he was denied a fair trial. Firishchak describes the judge's comments on his demeanor and mannerisms as completely unprofessional. The district court opinion stated that Firishchak's demeanor and mannerisms clearly showed that he was lying under oath on the stand, and the judge described Firishchak's shameless attempt to excuse himself from an inexcusable act as cowardly. Firishchak, 426 F.Supp.2d at 784. Although the district court's language may appear stern, the government correctly states that it is the job of any factfinder to assess a witnesses' credibility. Gov. Br. at 49 (emphasis in original); see Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). 45 Firishchak continues with what the government labels a hodgepodge of unsupported accusations and grievances, Gov. Br. at 49, but fails to cite any authority for his complaints. He complains that he did not receive a jury trial, he could not substitute a new judge, and his case was assigned to a career government attorney with experience only in representing the government. Firishchak Br. at 50-51. Additionally, he argues that his trial was unfair because the trial judge reminded the government to admit its exhibits into evidence. Id. 46 Firishchak's independent fair trial claims were not preserved because he did not raise these issues at trial. United States v. Walker, 9 F.3d 1245, 1249 (7th Cir.1993). As a result, this Court can only reverse if the district court committed plain error. Id. A plain error is one that is so obvious, crucial, and egregious that we should correct it despite the absence of an objection below. See Backwater, Inc. v. Penn-American Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir.2006). Although it is unclear whether plain error review is available in appeals from denaturalization trials, we decline to decide this issue, because the result is the same if forfeiture precludes review altogether or if the decision below is reviewed for plain error. Assuming, arguendo, that plain error review applies, Firishchak has not established that any of his unsubstantiated grievances amount to a showing of plain error. Because denaturalization proceedings are considered equitable rather than criminal, defendants in those proceedings are entitled to neither a jury trial nor a substitution of judge. Moreover, like all cases in the district court, Firishchak's case was randomly assigned to a judge who is duty-bound to act impartially, and Firishchak has offered no evidence that the district judge neglected that duty. As a result, Firishchak's claim that he was denied a fair trial cannot succeed.