Opinion ID: 688532
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Using the Alternates Harm McSwain?

Text: 7 McSwain's co-defendant also raised on appeal the issue of whether the court erred in substituting the two alternates for the removed jurors. This court concluded that the district court did err by using the two alternates, because Curry himself did not consent to the use of the alternates. The court went on to hold, however, that the error did not prejudice Curry. See id. 8 McSwain contends that we are not bound by Curry, because in Curry we applied a plain error standard. McSwain argues that the plain error standard is inapplicable to him because McSwain's attorney objected to the use of alternates. A difference in standards of review does not dictate a different result, however. We must still affirm if the error was harmless. United States v. Gonzales-Rincon, 36 F.3d 859, 866 (9th Cir. 1994). In Curry's appeal, we held that Curry had not shown that use of the alternatives caused him prejudice. McSwain has similarly shown no prejudice. The error in employing the alternate jurors was accordingly harmless.