Opinion ID: 186880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Read Complete Jury Instructions

Text: 23 Finally, Perry argues that the district court erred by failing to read aloud the complete jury instructions. Because Perry did not object at trial, we review his claim under the plain error standard. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Under that standard, we will remedy a trial court error only if there is (1) `error,' (2) that is `plain,' and (3) that `affect[s] substantial rights[]' . . . [and] (4) the error `seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770). An error affec[ts] substantial rights if it is prejudicial or affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. 24 While we have not addressed the issue, both the Third Circuit and the Ninth Circuit have held that [i]t is . . . essential that all instructions to the jury be given by the trial judge orally in the presence of counsel and the defendant. United States v. Noble, 155 F.2d 315, 318 (3d Cir.1946); accord Guam v. Marquez, 963 F.2d 1311, 1314-15 (9th Cir.1992). In Noble, the court explained its reasoning: 25 [T]he trial judge would not have fulfilled his duty . . . merely by sending the information out with the jury to read if they chose to do so . . . . For not only are counsel and the defendant entitled to hear the instructions in order that they may . . . object to them and secure their prompt correction by the trial judge, but it is equally important to make as certain as may be that each member of the jury has actually received the instructions. 26 Noble, 155 F.2d at 318; see also Marquez, 963 F.2d at 1314-15 (trial judge must read jury instructions aloud to jury for reasons articulated . . . in Noble ). 27 We agree with our sister circuits that a trial judge must read aloud jury instructions in their entirety. As the Ninth Circuit noted, the lack of case law on the subject most likely results from the fact that judges and litigators have always assumed that jury instructions must be oral. Marquez, 963 F.2d at 1314. Accordingly, the district court erred in failing to read to the jury the definitions of computer, loss and individual. 7 28 Perry has failed to demonstrate, however, that the judge's error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. 8 Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. In addition to the general charge relating to burden of proof, credibility of witnesses and the like, see Tr. II, 2/4/04 at 94, 97-98, the judge read to the jurors the portion of the charge explaining the essential elements of the charged offense, 9 see id. at 105-06, and failed to read only the definitions of three words referenced in the elements. There is little chance that the jurors failed to actually receive[ ], Noble, 155 F.2d at 318, the definitions because the judge orally instructed them to read the definitions in the written charge they had with them in the jury room, Tr. II, 2/4/04 at 105 (There are definitions. Loss is defined, computer's defined. There's a statute defining the offense. I'm not going to read that to you. You can read it.). Even if the jurors did not read the definitions, computer, loss and individual are simple terms and the jury instruction definitions differ immaterially from their dictionary meanings. 10 We conclude the district court did not plainly err in failing to read aloud the definitions of computer, loss and individual. 29 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 11 30 So ordered.