Opinion ID: 2820053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the plain error standard

Text: Because defendant did not preserve his claim that the trial court failed to swear the jury, this issue is reviewed under the plain error standard. 2 Under this standard, appellate courts may grant relief if the person asserting the error can satisfy four elements (the Carines prongs): (1) an error occurred; (2) the error is “plain,” that is, clear or obvious; and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights, that is, affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings. 3 If these three elements are satisfied, the fourth element calls on an appellate court to “exercise its discretion in deciding whether to reverse.” 4 Relief is only warranted when the court determines that the plain, forfeited error resulted in the 2 People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). 3 Id. 4 Id. 2 conviction of an actually innocent defendant or “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings . . . .” 5 As discussed below, I would hold that the failure to swear the jury amounted to a literal deprivation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. 6 I would also hold that this error was plain. Finally, I would hold that an unsworn jury constitutes a structural error that is not amenable to the prejudice inquiry under the third Carines prong. These three premises establish that the failure to swear the jury has a fundamental and serious effect on the integrity of the proceedings; the features of the trial record that the majority cites to conclude otherwise do not mitigate the fundamental unfairness that results when a defendant is tried by an unsworn jury.