Opinion ID: 220729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: If there was error, was it plain?

Text: Nevertheless, despite our concern about the form of the indictment in this case, we cannot lose sight of the fact that these issues were not raised below and so are before us on plain error review. As we have noted on an earlier occasion, the hurdle of plain error nowhere looms larger than in the context of alleged instructional errors. United States v. Paniagua-Ramos, 251 F.3d 242, 246 (1st Cir.2001). Although we have concluded that the failure to provide a specific unanimity instruction was error and violated the appellants' right to a unanimous jury verdict, this alone is not sufficient to satisfy the rigors of plain error review. To prevail under plain error requires showing, among other things, that any error of law was plainthat is, that it was obvious and clear under current law. Smith v. Kmart Corp., 177 F.3d 19, 26 (1st Cir.1999). We cannot say that the error here met that standard. We note that this court has previously rejected a claim substantially similar to that brought by the appellants, albeit with fairly minimal analysis. See Pagan-Santini, 451 F.3d at 267. Moreover, as we noted in Pagan-Santini, the law is less clear than it might be as to when juror unanimity is required in the face of alternative paths to a verdict. Id.; see also United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11, 32 (1st Cir.2002) (declining to find plain error in trial court's failure to give specific unanimity instruction with respect to charge of conspiracy to murder thirteen individuals on grounds of the unsettled state of the law.) It appears not to have gotten any clearer since then. In light of the presence of some, even if not exactly overwhelming, countervailing authority, and because of the lack of doctrinal clarity in this areathe relevant unit of prosecution under § 666(a)(1)(A), the crucial issue underpinning the appellants' claim, appears not to have been hitherto addressed by this circuitwe cannot say with confidence that any error here was plain. We emphasize, however, that because we hold that the indictment was impermissibly duplicitous, plain error review may prove to be cold comfort for similarly defective charging instruments going forward.