Document: 470 U.S. 1 105 S.Ct. 1038 84 L.Ed.2d UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Billy G. YOUNG. No. 83-469. Argued Oct. 2, 1984. Decided Feb. 20, 1985. Syllabus Respondent was charged with various federal offenses involving a scheme to defraud refinery by submitting false certifications that oil purchased the from respondent's company crude when in fact it less valuable fuel oil. At trial District Court, defense counsel his closing argument impugned prosecutor's integrity and prosecutor did not believe Government's case. No objection counsel's summation made at time, but rebuttal arguments stated opinion respondent guilty urged jury "do its job"; no objection. convicted on several counts, appeal alleged he unfairly prejudiced response argument. The Court of Appeals reversed remanded for new trial, holding under case law Circuit, such remarks constituted misconduct were plain error, appellate review precluded failure object trial. Held: during argument, although constitute "plain error" reviewing court could properly act Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 52(b), absent timely counsel; record, challenged undermine fairness Pp. 6-20. (a) kind advocacy both sides as shown record has place administration justice should neither be permitted nor rewarded; appropriate solution is judge deal promptly any breach either counsel. 6-11. (b) issue license make otherwise improper arguments, whether "invited response" taken context defendant. Lawn v. United States, 355 339, 78 311, 2 321. In order an assessment, must only weigh impact remarks, also take into account conduct. evaluation been if "invited" more than respond substantially "right scale," comments would warrant reversing conviction. 11-14. (c) plain-error exception 52(b) contemporaneous-objection requirement used those circumstances which miscarriage result. Especially addressing cannot evaluate except viewing claimed error against entire record. When reviewed these principles, this rise level error. Viewed context, inappropriate amounting fundamental contribute justice. 14-20. 3 736 F.2d 565 (10th Cir.), reversed. 4 Michael McConnell petitioner, pro hac vice, special leave Court. 5 Burck Bailey, Oklahoma City, Okl., respondent. 6 Chief Justice BURGER delivered 7 We granted certiorari reversal conviction because prosecutorial responding impugning prosecution's belief 8 * Billy Young, vice president general manager Compton Petroleum Corporation Abilene, Texas, contracted 1976 1977 deliver monthly supplies "sweet" Apco Oil Cyril, Oklahoma. Some 205,000 barrels contract between January September 1977, half Apco, approximately 117,250 barrels, consisted oil, already refined product Compton's invoices accompanying deliveries falsely certified all crude. relied reported Energy Administration, compliance Government regulations, 10 CFR §§ 211.66, 211.67, 212.131 (1976), amount thought refining each month. Administration turn Apco's reports determine national averages tier categories purposes equalizing cost entitlement program. 9 Respondent's deceive selling cheaper masquerading relatively simple. arranged brokerage firm, owned longtime friend, procure another source sell certification then pay firm cents per barrel commission fee "recertification." Once storage tanks, had disguised before delivering blending condensate, high gravity liquid wellheads natural gas wells, oil.1 after technician performed distillation test one deliveries, discovered receiving required contract, rather mixture condensate. This discovery prompted Bureau Investigation launch investigation resulted prosecution. On December 1, 1980, 11 counts mail fraud violation 18 U.S.C. § 1341, three willfully knowingly making statements agency 1001, count interstate transportation stolen property 2314, aiding abetting 15 2. A held Western Oklahoma.2 own defense, testified legitimately He believed condensate blended result equivalent Because complained about satisfied quality supplying. close case, summarized evidence Defense began arguing "has presented prosecution," "[f]rom beginning" "this very moment [prosecution's] have poison your minds unfairly." Tr. 542. intimated prosecution deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence, proceeded charge "reprehensible" conduct purportedly attempting cast light activities. pointed directly table stated: "I submit you there's person courtroom including sitting who think Young intended Apco." Id., 543-544. Finally, "the whole affair acted honor integrity" "[t]hese complex [Department Energy] regulations effort put someone away." 547. 12 summation, responded claim case: 13 [defense counsel] said anyone thinks Mr. Apco. Well, I there was. got 85 every 117,250.91 hauled bit money they percent of. So, did. If we are allowed give our personal impressions since asked me." 549. (Emphasis added.) 14 Continuing portions respondent, statement defrauded: don't know what call that, fraud. 16 "You can look remember testimony, [the witnesses] [respondent] admitted said. it's fraud." 550. 17 addressed integrity. briefly recapped some integrity, does. feel acquit him pleasure. you're doing job jurors finding facts opposed Judge going instruct you, that's stand up here say integrity; it." 552. 19 turn, statements. Nor request curative instructions none given. 20 returned verdict counts. acquitted property. sentenced two years' imprisonment count, served concurrently, fined $39,000. 21 appeal, curiam opinion, Appeals, dissenting without retrial. (CA10 1983). sufficiently egregious short, preclude review. Rejecting contention invited rule clear Circuit part opposing met court, similarly response." 570. 22 certiorari, 465 1021, 104 1271, 79 676 (1984). now reverse. II 23 principal resolved appropriate, Our task decide standard laid down States Atkinson, 297 157, 160, 56 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936), codified correctly applied Appeals. 24 Nearly century ago counselled prosecutors "to refrain methods calculated produce wrongful . ." Berger 295 78, 88, 55 629, 633, 74 1314 (1935). clear, however, adversary system permits "prosecute earnestness vigor." Ibid. other words, "while may strike hard blows, liberty foul ones." 25 line separating acceptable easily drawn; often gray zone. Prosecutors sometimes their duty overzealous commenting defendant's guilt offering unsolicited views evidence. Accordingly, legal profession, through Codes Professional Responsibility,3 courts,4 tried police misconduct. complementing efforts, American Bar Association's Standing Committee Standards promulgated useful guidelines, states 26 "[i]t unprofessional express or her truth falsity testimony defendant." ABA 3-5.8(b)(2d ed. 1980).5 27 It share confine within proper bounds. Just circumscribed, "[t]he interests society preservation control judges frustrated unchecked improprieties defenders." Sacher 343 8, 72 451, 455, 96 717 (1952). counsel, like prosecutor, interjecting beliefs presentation See, e.g., Model Code Responsibility DR 7-106(C)(3) (4) (1980), quoted n. 3, supra; Rules Conduct, 3.4(e)(1984). adversary, unfounded inflammatory attacks advocate.6 28 These considerations plainly guided laying rules quite hold advocates essentially same standards.7 Indeed, commentary points out accepted subject limitations scope argument," 4-7.8, p. 4.97, provides following guideline: 29 "The prohibition larger avoid acrimony relations firmly established lawyer abstain allusion peculiarities idiosyncrasies attack improper, obviously reciprocal." 4.99 (footnotes omitted). 30 standards reflect consensus profession courts lose sight reality "[a] criminal does unfold play actors script." Geders 425 80, 86, 1330, 1334, 47 592 (1976). come surprise "in heat do occasionally justified are, be, prejudicial accused." Dunlop 165 486, 498, 375, 379, 41 799 (1897).8 31 emphasize responsibility maintain decorum keeping nature proceeding; mere moderator, governor purpose assuring conduct." Quercia 289 466, 469, 53 698, 77 1321 (1933). "must meet situations arise [be able] cope contingencies inherent process." supra, U.S., S.Ct., 1334. Of course, "hard blows" avoided trials; kept See Herring New York, 422 853, 862, 95 2550, 2555, 45 593 (1975). III 32 situation brought example too common occurrence trials—the argues improperly, provoking kind, takes corrective action. Clearly arguments—two apparent wrongs—do right Nevertheless, lightly overturned basis standing alone, viewed context; so determined affected To help resolve problem, invoked called reply" rule, treated 321 (1958). 33 petitioners sought overturn convictions income tax evasion number grounds, deprived them fair attacked "persecuting" defendants. told instituted bad faith behest revenue agents asserted key witnesses perjurers. vouched credibility witnesses, telling truthfully. concluding deprive "comments clearly reply." 359-360, 15, 322-323, 15. 34 Court's application settled law. Inappropriate comments, justify reverse obtained proceeding. Instead, teaches, examined behavior amounted consider probable effect jury's ability fairly. conduct, well response, relevant. Socony-Vacuum Co., 310 150, 242, 60 811, 1129 (1940); Crumpton 138 361, 364, 355, 356, 958 (1891). Indeed most Courts applying holdings, refused where reasonably attacks, thus rendering unlikely led astray.9 35 retrospect, perhaps idea evolved way contemplated. earlier cases cited above read suggesting judicial approval encouragement—of response-in-kind inevitably exacerbates tensions process. As itself indicates, response," 36 opening salvo. Thus import "invited," conviction.10 37 means encourage practice zealous "out bounds" manner here, "invitation." Reviewing ought position weighing lesser. "Invited responses" effectively discouraged prompt action bench form and, necessary, admonition errant advocate. 38 Plainly, better remedy least accurate vision hindsight, blunt need respond. Arguably warranted interrupt admonish him, see Viereck 318 236, 248, 63 561, 566, 87 734 (1943), thereby unnecessary. Similarly, objected warning instruction jury. even though vulnerable, done likewise harmful client. Here preserve Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 644, 94 1868, 1872, 40 431 (1974). However, interruptions presiding judge, matters approached cautiously. least, conference might convened hearing once closed, IV 39 unaware holdings Circuits, seemingly undertake context. acknowledged obvious misconduct, appear given weight evaluating situation. Appeals' desire minimize responses"; agree addition departing Tenth Circuit's "rule" prohibiting remarks,11 crossed permissible ethical 6-10, went beyond necessary scale" wake first failing ask suggested earlier, dispositive rose setting response—although error—was warranting overlook absence defense. 42 doctrine 52(b)12 tempers blow rigid requirement. authorizes correct "particularly errors," Frady, 456 152, 163, 102 1584, 1592, 71 816 (1982), errors "seriously affect fairness, public reputation proceedings," 392. "used sparingly, solely result." 14, 14. Any unwarranted extension exacting definition skew Rule's "careful balancing participants seek time around insistence injustice redressed." 1592 (footnote use meriting objection13—a criticized "extravagant protection." Henderson Kibbe, 145, 154, 12, 97 1730, 1736, 52 203 (1977); Namet 373 179, 190, 83 1151, 1156, 278 (1963). 43 reminded: 44 "In cases, particularly important relive imaginatively extract episodes isolation abstract questions procedure. quest promotes ends acquiesce low prosecution." Johnson 189, 202, 549, 555, 704 (1943) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). simply possible assess seriousness means. 240, 852 "each necessarily turns facts." 46 principles mind, statements, 1592; 392.14 "personal impressio[n]," commit answer accusation member team point preface summarizing acerbic candidly giving impressions" them. 48 Notwithstanding standards, showed defrauded made; expression assertion conclude potential harm remark mitigated understanding countering repeated crime. 49 "honor integrity," calling attention follow court's rhetoric alone sole honorable actor affair," id., 547, find understand applicable, complex, regulations. try exhort pressure, justice, see, Justice, 3-5.8(c) 4-7.8(c). Given broadside attack, influenced stray unbiased.15 50 concerns underlying reactions implicated extent deliberations compromised. vouching expressing concerning accused pose dangers: convey impression jury, known supports charges defendant jeopardize jury; carries imprimatur induce trust judgment view 88-89, 633. 51 contained suggestion relying information outside supported comment referring received personally bonus net profits, 501-503; adduced charged. Although guilt, 633; Standard 3-5.8(b), implying access surely understood was—a decision integrity—in bringing heard overwhelming intent eliminates lingering doubt exploited prestige eyes Not single witness mixed sold flatly rejected proposition, 352-353, 393-395. trader never legally stating 359. undisputed failed advise actually supplying supplied requirements. 358-359. Moreover, whatever concealed Apart enlisting aid "recertify" separate occasions, questioned officials FBI agents, denied instead 293-294, 357-358, 496, 516. Under circumstances, substantial virtually uncontradicted willful additional indication V 54 objection; persuaded seriously ordering based ordered. BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL BLACKMUN join, concurring part. 57 Fraud Section Department Washington, D.C., (1) repeatedly fraud, (2) "experience matters" discussing consequences Young's (3) admonished voted acquit, "doing jurors." App. 8-11. arguments. conviction, justification emphasized " '[w]e comfort proposition upon opens door similar government counsel.' 565, 570 (1983), quoting Ludwig, 508 140, 143 1974). "improper F.2d, 58 sensible conclusion falls authority appeals define reasonable 52(b)—that is, whole, affect[ed] [the] proceedings." (1936); 11, 1591, (1982); 239, 851, (1940). noted contours inquiry, implicitly outcome proceedings. address cryptically concluded "speak themselves" error." remand inquiry.1 59 analysis leads me concur much opinion. Specifically, fully "right" reply improprieties, join set rhetorical violations And below stand. respectfully completely disagree aspects resolution First, appears adopt analysis, grudgingly acknowledges improperly approach gross Second, remanding reaches inquiry own. Even correct—and misgivings thoroughness unexplained departure usual misconceives institutional role constitutes poor administration. infrequently gives plenary consideration do, attempt forth clarity guide A. 61 petition writ resolve, inter alia, question "[w]hether rebut [improper] responsive provocation." Pet. Cert. (I). contends recognize "a respond" "right," responses "are improper" impermissible. Brief 15-16. 62 Today rejects reply, emphasizing "license arguments" rhetoric, ante, "constituted error," (rejecting "judicial approval—or response-in-kind"), 16-20. observes, "[c]learly Ante, 11. instructs, recourse "prompt advocate." 13.2 today reaffirms lower enforce conduct.3 notes, departed precedents requiring kind; B 64 conclusions. goes suggest, apply determining standards. "on fairly," "[d]efense conduct," "responded reasonably" circumstances. 12. will excused "did 'right scale.' 12-13. 65 critically flawed: overlooks responsibilities threatens undercut place. addition, misapplied 66 begin with, while observes fails acknowledge long representative higher behavior: 67 Attorney ordinary party controversy, sovereignty whose obligation govern impartially compelling all; interest, therefore, shall win done. 68 ". Consequently, suggestions, insinuations especially, assertions knowledge apt carry none." 69 Accord, (1943). Cf. 3.8 (1984) ("A minister advocate"); EC 7-13 (1980) (prosecutor owes "special duty"); 3-5.8, 3.88 (2d 1980). trivializes overlooked merely decided sua sponte scale."4 70 "reasonabl[e]" "necessary scale,' palpably inconsistent "constitute[s] 14; sort "no rewarded." 9. Such harmless, contradiction terms suggest 1045, 1046. There certainly nothing concededly serious Apco.5 initial indeed 16-18, characterized falling bounds restrained reply.6 But content there. fraud.7 predictions continuing effects matters."8 Third, warned jurors" convict Young.9 separately cumulatively violated disciplinary profession,10 deserve stern unqualified condemnation. Yet reserves force ire criticism castigates "attacks," "opening salvo," "going 'out bounds,' "misconduct," "obviously vulnerable" position, "obvious misconduct," "accusation[s]," "acerbic charge[s]," "breach standards," assertion[s]," "repeated attacks," "broadside attack[s]." 13, 17, 18. comparison, reluctantly concede "we "inappropriate," "should made," "not necessary." 16, 17. disparity tone illustrates major abuses doctrine, abuse commentators.11 Rather limited corrective, frequently employ unclean hands altogether prevents successfully challenging improprieties. results, today, minimizing far "fair" arguments.12 73 further support "concerns" strictures here," way. maintains, example, "contained trial." 19. much, ever "my experience matters." 10. proscription concerned references nonrecord recognizes, evidence." 633.13 risks, decrees construed having "exploited jury." cavalier wholly odds longstanding presumption contrary, provide reasoned striking departure. excusable, concedes. Many historically warnings job" among forms Annot., A.L.R.2d 1132 (1962 Supp.1979). How possibly, then, characterize "defense" "of charges"? 75 nevertheless require created unacceptable danger influence verdict, conclusory committed 76 detect harmless-error rules, course followed procedure countless cases.14 explanation inappropriately decides itself. Its flawed respects, flaws demonstrate wisdom leaving inquiries instance courts. rests large analysis. gravamen reasoning apparently supposedly canceled excesses, tied "surely understood" "for was," unethical likely jurors' deliberations. demonstrated fallacy premises. requires careful prejudice. brief paragraphs summarizes proclaims "overwhelming" "beyond whatever." 19, 20. invokes curious pronouncement: faced reinforces independently fairly." 18, "overwhelming," difficult perceive why partial acquittal. just naturally interpreted compromise, supporting exhortation impact. minimizes specific-intent crimes good therefore stands complete Martin-Trigona, 684 485, 492 (CA7 1982) (mail fraud); Lange, 528 1280, 1287-1288 (CA5 1976) (false statements). specific turned credibility, impropriety participated in, significant believed, innocent ignorant motives.15 flouting professional canons 392; 162, 11; Brasfield 272 448, 450, 135, 136, 345 (1926). From citations 570, present recurring problem. pass problem panel's concern compromised necessary.16 deficiencies reinforce embark traditional fact-bound remand. 30-31, Two undergird practice. function primarily factual decisions, exercise supervisory power over focused ensuring uniformity case-specific process particularized individual disputes—one functions capably appeals. allocation subtle vitally differences outlook, shortcut majority particular "established 81 evenhanded willingness courts' determinations, analyses ever-increasing frequency. institutionally capable conducting detailed administering doctrines. 82 "This busy spending hours transcripts likelihood practical matter, impossible Member conscientious examination precede determination insult imply, trusted normally conducted remand." Hasting, 461 499, 516-517, 103 1974, 1984-1985, (1983) (STEVENS, judgment). Surely spent familiarizing ourselves details crude-oil processes; relative gravities qualities sweet crude, Number oil; long-rescinded regulations; oil-industry testing procedures; companies individuals interacted—matters isolated STEVENS, dissenting. (1963), recognized objection, theories: reflected accused. 186-187, 1154-1155. satisfy standard, 188-189, 1155-1156, saw reason extravagant protection petitioner himself appeared disregard." 1156.1 affirmed 86 unanimously error.2 presented.3 lines profession." 25-26 (BRENNAN, joined BLACKMUN, JJ., part). Thus, elements here. With respect second element—prejudice—there disagreement submit, confusion carefully avoids denying concludes "unfairly" prejudice 1049, partly convinced guilty.4 hand, explains permit "plain" "harmless." send back perform task.5 88 my perfectly determination. how dispute prejudicial. degree prejudice, buttressed legitimate interest deterring sufficient reversal. question, factor plays critical role.6 am due work circuit judges, combined reading warrants exactly BRENNAN again. 89 took note Appellant 9a. After relevant transcript themselves," 10a, considering dealing "prejudicial jury," ibid., expressly familiar difference "harmless error."7 asking supplement written, affirm judgment. wanted gasoline production. yields greater quantities diesel fuels asphalt. Fuel needed buying. Prior plea nolo contendere imposed fine. 7-106(C) pertinent part: appearing capacity tribunal, not: "(3) Assert issue, testifying witness. "(4) justness cause, witness, culpability civil litigant, innocence accused; argue, herein." 3.4(e) DiPasquale, 740 1282, 1296 (CA3 1984); Maccini, 721 840, 846 (CA1 1983); Harrison, 716 1050, 1051 (CA4 Bagaric, 706 42, 58-61 (CA2 West, 680 652, 655-656 (CA9 1982); Garza, 608 659, 665-666 1979). remaining text 3-5.8 1980) provides: "(a) argue inferences intentionally misstate mislead draw. "(c) inflame passions prejudices "(d) divert injecting issues broader controlling law, verdict. "(e) ensure final proper, bounds." succinctly policies proscriptions: "Expressions unsworn, tend exploit office objective detachment cause being argued." 3.89. employs tactics reversible unreviewable utterances, always reviewable "both administrator 3-1.1(b) 1980); cf. "(b) client's attribute crime unless inference Learned Hand observed: "It expect showing feeling; stakes high, emotion." Wexler, 526, 529-530 1935), cert. denied, 703, 384, 991 (1936). 1296; 846; 1052; Trujillo, 714 102, (CA11 670 675, 688-689 Tham, 665 855, 862 1981); Schwartz, 655 142 (CA8 1981) (per ); Praetorius, 622 1054, 1060-1061 1979); Kim, 193 U.S.App.D.C. 370, 381-383, 595 755, 767-768 (1979). Assuming exceeded raised harmless. (1983). Until decision, largely dicta opinions. Rios, 611 1335, 1343 Latimer, 511 503 1975); Martinez, 487 973, 977 1973); Coppola, 479 1153, 1163 1973). 1974) (court recites rejecting harmless conduct). "Plain defects affecting rights noticed court." Advisory Committee's Notes indicate restated existing Wiborg 163 632, 1127, (1896): "[A]lthough raised, yet absolutely vital defendants, 658, 1137. Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. U.S.C.App., 657. drafting shows enable "so thwarted." Supreme Procedure, Preliminary Draft 263 disjunctive phrasing misleading, commentator noted, "may distinguishing definitional 'errors' (e.g., exclusion evidence) 'defects' defective pleading)," applies rights. 8B J. Moore, Moore's Practice ¶ 52.02[2], 52-4, 1984). (1940), "counsel remain silent, interpose objections, seize prosecutor's] prejudicial." 238-239, 851. ignored responses. se flawed. An readily trigger 52(b). Following decisions Frady; consistently "substantial rights," unfair Only able undermined contributed lead indulge pointless errors"—a contrary draftsmen's intention behind studiously commentators criticized, 52-3 52-4; 3A C. Wright, 856, 344 1982). seems retreated Mason 719 1485, 1489-1490 faced, "sufficiently overwhelming. discussion frequency recent years" recurrent threatened proceedings Circuit. readings below, societal costs retrial discuss 528, 1990, part) (courts powers "only consideration, balancing, interests"). primary considered below. infra, 33-35. 39-page brief, devotes footnote unreasonableness according reply. 23, 18: "We alternative proposed (Pet.App. 11a)—objecting requesting disregard argument—is dispel unfairness engendered hypocrisy here." notes typically presumed 13. prescribe district respective jurisdictions. Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 146, 396, 400, 368 (1973), observed "appellate will, conform constitutional mandates, procedures deemed desirable viewpoint sound nowise commanded statute Constitution." 648, 1873, (1974), courts, authority," "discourage" Bartone 375 52, 54, 21, 22, (1963) ) "broad supervision" proceedings); Mesarosh 352 (1956); McNabb 332, 340, 608, 612, 819 ("Judicial supervision implies establishing maintaining civilized evidence"). Excusing ground suggests, me, something schoolyard brawl children. excuse smacks "sporting theory justice," survival days lawsuit fight clans." Pound, Causes Popular Dissatisfaction A.B.A.Rep. 395, 404-406 (1906). concedes, unclear scale." indictment says intending devise obtain fraudulent pretenses. 5. argued "unfairly," integrity." 4-7. was." 8. me. You That's prosecution, 8-9. "He said—Mr. Bailey didn't lose, doesn't back. won't they're All stripper Al Green he's get invoices. think." 10-11. (incorporating above); 3-5.8(b) ("It defendant"). Stein, Closing Argument—The Art Law Alschuler, Courtroom Misconduct Trial Judges, Texas L.Rev. 657-658 (1972); Crump, Function Limits Prosecution Jury Argument, Sw.L.Rev. 505, 531-533 invited-response deduce watch certain mistakes make, objecting open advantage mistake. Comment, Limitations Upon Prosecutor's Summation Jury, J.Crim.L., & P.S. 73, (1951). Bess, 749, 755 (CA6 1979) ("Implicit [a guilty, implied virtue experience, intellect, convict. devastating 'testimony' apparent"). Kentucky Whorton, 441 786, 789-790, 99 2088, 2089-2090, 640 (1979) Moore Illinois, 434 220, 232, 98 458, 424 429 29, 30, (1976) Coleman Alabama, 399 90 1999, 2004, 387 (1970); Foster California, 394 440, 444, 1129, 402 (1969); Gilbert 388 263, 274, 1951, 1957, 1178 (1967); Wade, 218, 1926, 1940, 1149 Ferguson 962, 479, 413 (1964) (order). Connecticut Johnson, 460 969, 985, 823 (Powell, dissenting) (question error's "[n]ormally appropriately left below," "[t]here us"). "unfinished" yield blend still "crude" then-extant maintained Kenneth Ross, officer Prime Resources Corporation, permissible. 514. Ross determinations. industry practice, albeit 55, 59, 69, highest-quality yielded superior lower-quality crudes. 55-56, 427. seven months, tested it, untoward results; attempted off unadulterated low-quality became concerned. 364-366, 412. eighth-grade education, certification; agreed "make lick sense" 367. themselves many others aware scheme, Young. 57-58, 78-80. suggests found "had deliberations." Plain grounded, extreme misbehavior pattern intentional deterred remedies, doctrine. 527, 1990 (supervisory powers). appended footnote: "Finding, involves material importance, Maloney, [262 535 1959)], 10, (1977). 16-20; 26-30 asked: "Whether asserting 17-19. not, remember, "rather decision. crucial thing wrong men, one's own, total setting." Kotteakos 328 750, 764, 1239, 1247 (1946). 30-35 commented difficulty standard: "This, part, general; discrimination transcending confinement formula precise rule. 852, 1129. That faculty imprisoned criterion technical, rights; really affects latter hurtfully. Judgment, along intelligence, varies circumstance. What technical another; minor unimportant another." 761, 1246. entitled "Harmless Error Error," reads follows: Harmless Error. defect, irregularity variance disregarded. Court." restatement [16 1197], [41 289]; Hemphill 112 C.C.A. 9th, 312 657, [61 729, 1106], conformed 120 115, 314 627, [62 111, 503]. foll. 354, specified disregarded, 'save option, notice assigned specified.' Similar provisions appeals."

Category: 0