Document: 507 U.S. 725 113 S.Ct. 1770 123 L.Ed.2d 508 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Guy W. OLANO, Jr., and Raymond M. Gray. No. 91-1306. Argued Dec. 9, 1992. Decided April 26, 1993. Syllabus * Two of the fourteen jurors selected to hear evidence in respondents' criminal trial were identified as alternates before jury deliberations began. The District Court, without objection from respondents, permitted attend deliberations, instructing them that they should not participate, respondents convicted on a number charges. Court Appeals vacated convictions. It concluded, inter alia, alternates' presence during violated Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 24(c), which requires alternate be discharged after retires consider its verdict. court found violation 24(c) was inherently prejudicial reversible per se under "plain error" standard 52(b). Held: an error authorized correct Pp. ____. (a) A appeals has discretion 52(b) errors or defects affecting substantial rights" forfeited because timely raised district court, it exercise only if "seriously affect fairness, integrity public reputation judicial proceedings," United States v. Atkinson, 297 157, 160, 56 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555. There are three limitations appellate authority First, there must "error." deviation legal rule proceedings is unless defendant waived rule. Mere forfeiture does extinguish error. Second, "plain," term synonymous with "clear" or, equivalently, "obvious." Third, plain "affec[t] rights," normally means prejudicial, outcome proceedings. Normally engages specific analysis court's record determine prejudice, bears burden persuasion. This need decide whether phrase "affecting always "prejudicial" presumed prejudicial. (b) language 52(b), nature forfeiture, established practice Congress intended continue, all point conclusion permissive, mandatory. guide remedial articulated supra, at S.Ct., 392. remedy limited cases actual innocence, since may proceedings" independent defendant's innocence. However, rights not, more, satisfy Atkinson standard, for otherwise afforded by would illusory. (c) Government concedes this case "error" "plain." did rights." type analyzed impact. While their contravened cardinal principle shall remain private secret, purpose such privacy protect improper influence. Whether presumption prejudice imposed made change ultimate inquiry: Did intrusion jury's thereby verdict? See, e.g., Parker Gladden, 385 363, 87 468, 17 420 (per curiam). Respondents have no showing either participated in, "chilled," deliberations. Nor can presumed. erred presuming failed follow judge's instructions, see, Richardson Marsh, 481 200, 206, 107 1702, 1706, 95 176, mere entail sufficient risk "chill" justify score. Since warranted correction standard. 934 F.2d 1425 (CA9 1991), reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, WHITE BLACKMUN, Solicitor Gen. Kenneth Starr, Washington, DC, argued petitioner. Carter G. Phillips, appointed respondent. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 question Rules Procedure. 2 Each Guy Olano, Gray, served board directors savings loan association. In 1986, two indicted Western Washington multiple federal charges participation elaborate "kickback" scheme. Their joint five other codefendants commenced March, 1987. All parties agreed case, 3 On May shortly end 3-month trial, suggested defendants jurors, soon identified, might allowed along regular jurors: 4 ". . I'd just like you think about it, day, let me know, it's suggestion can—if even one person who doesn't we won't do but courts followed long where sat through lot testimony, go sit 5 "It's strictly matter courtesy I know many judges done objections counsel. One things don't participate they're there, emergency comes up people they'd rather new than 11, rules provide, keeps option open. also feeling they've here months then get kind kicked out. But certainly worth—unless something agree to, worth your spending time hassling about, what mean? You've got too much else mind. want big issue; suggestion. Think know." App. 79. 6 arose again next ambiguous exchange between Gray's counsel Court: 7 "THE COURT: [H]ave given any more thought out? 8 "MR. ROBISON [counsel Gray]: We ask not. 9 Not." 82. 10 day later, 28, last third asked wanted retire into room. Counsel Davy Hilling gave unequivocal, affirmative answer. 11 Well, Counsel, received alternates. Do understand now—it's hard keep you, Counsel. It's sort day—but that's right. You deliberate? 12 "Okay. instruct deliberation? 13 KELLOGG Hilling]: That's my feet say. understanding conversation back instructed take part fashion deliberations." 86. 14 discussion, preceding two, took place outside hearing jurors. As before, both Olano's present. too, attended discussions. Olano third—he claims marshal return him courtroom time—but he present first two. 15 concluded Hilling's speaking well his own client. None intervened colloquy nor anyone object later same when instructed: 16 "We indicated selecting time. am going inform those are, do, tell difficult selection concerned, law twelve, twelve. so according law, hard, alternate, happen course lengthy step able having heard participate. "The Norman Sargent Shirley Kinsella. now, ladies gentlemen, room begin 89-90. 18 During excused request. remained until returned 19 Both They appealed Ninth Circuit. (1991). certain counts insufficient considered Procedure: 20 direct addition called impanelled Alternate order replace who, prior verdict, become unable disqualified perform duties. An juror verdict." 21 Because had objected presence, applied Noting "[w]e previously directly resolved validity verdict deliberations," relied "language 23(b), Advisory Committee Notes 23, related Circuit precedent" hold barred attending defendant, record, explicitly consented attendance. F.2d, 1436-1437. instant "the obtain individual waivers each personally, orally writing." Id., 1438. held "inherently prejudicial" se. Ibid. 22 cannot fairly ascertain prohibition participation. heeded letter instructions mute throughout, entirely possible attitudes, conveyed facial expressions, gestures like, some effect upon decision jurors." (internal quotation marks brackets omitted). 23 Finally, footnote, decided "[b]ecause infringes right defendants, falls within doctrine." 1439, n. 23. 24 remaining convictions reach "substantial issues" raised. 1428, 3. granted certiorari clarify review Courts 504 ----, 112 1935, 118 542 (1992). II 25 "No procedural familiar constitutional right," sort, "may civil failure make assertion tribunal jurisdiction it." Yakus States, 321 414, 444, 64 660, 677, 88 834 (1944). Procedure, governs appeal proceedings, provides power unchanged original version Rules, "a restatement existing law." Committee's Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 52, U.S.C.App., p. 833. paired, appropriately, 52(a), nonforfeited errors. 52 provides: 26 "(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity variance disregarded. 27 "(b) Plain noticed although brought attention court." 28 Although "[a] rigid undeviating judicially declared invariably circumstances decline questions been specifically urged out harmony fundamental justice," Hormel Helvering, 312 552, 557, 61 719, 721, 85 1037 (1941), created circumscribed. "plain" "affect[s] Moreover, leaves sound Appeals, " 'seriously affect[s] proceedings.' Young, 470 1, 15, 105 1038, 1046, 84 (1985) (quoting 555 (1936)). A. 29 defines single category forfeited-but-reversible read disjunctive, creating separate categories errors" "defects rights"— reading surely wrong. See U.S., 12, (declining adopt disjunctive reading). explained "error defect" simply noticed" More precisely, (either vacating reversing outright) meets these criteria. putative real, deciding judgment below overturned, provide applies (or provision authorizes error's correction, issue raise). 30 limitation indeed Deviation waived. For example, knowingly voluntarily pleads guilty conformity requirements conviction grounds ought trial. waivable, enters valid plea waives right, 31 Waiver different forfeiture. Whereas waiver "intentional relinquishment abandonment known right." Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461 (1938); Freytag Commissioner, 501 2, 111 2631, 2635, 115 764 (1991) (Scalia, judgment) (distinguishing "waiver" "forfeiture"); Spritzer, Waiver, Procedural Default Burger 126 U.Pa.L.Rev. 473, 474-477 (1978) (same); Westen, Away Waiver: Rationale Forfeiture Constitutional Rights 75 Mich.L.Rev. 1214, 1214-1215 (1977) (same). particular waivable; personally waiver; procedures required choice particularly informed voluntary, depend stake. LaFave & J. Israel, § 11.6 (1984) (allocation counsel); Dix, Brief Careful Analysis, 55 Texas L.Rev. 193 (waivability standards waiver). opposed waiver, theory could "[i]f presented committed hence nothing review," Orfield, Scope Appeal Cases, 825, 840 (1936), adopts. If waive rule, meaning despite absence objection. 32 second "Plain" 17, 14, 1047, 14; Frady, 456 152, 163, 102 1584, 1592, 71 816 (1982). special unclear becomes clear applicable clarified. At minimum, pursuant current law. 33 final employed most prejudicial: affected Bank Nova Scotia 487 250, 255-257, 108 2369, 2373-2374, 101 228 (1988); Lane, 474 438, 454-464, 106 725, 734-739, 814 (1986) (Brennan, part); Kotteakos 328 750, 758-765, 66 1239, 1244-1248, 90 1557 (1946). When 52(a) applies, record—a so-called "harmless inquiry —to inquiry, important difference: persuasion respect prejudice. cases, shows 1047 ("[F]ederal consistently interpreted plain-error doctrine requiring find claimed [a] impact deliberations"). burden-shifting dictated subtle difference parts 52: while precludes error-correction "does (emphasis added), Note, Appellate Review Case Errors Made Below Not Properly Raised Reserved, Miss.L.J. 42, 57 (1951) (summarizing law) ("The real probably influenced ."). 34 "prejudicial." generally Arizona Fulminante, 499 1246, 1264, 302 (constitutional harmless deprives 'basic protections [without which] reliably serve function vehicle determination guilt punishment regarded fundamentally fair' ") Rose Clark, 478 570, 577-578, 3101, 3106, 92 460 (1986)). corrected regardless outcome, addressed. address Normally, perhaps every prong B 35 so. ("may noticed"), conclusion. "[I]n life, liberty, stake, discretion, notice [forfeited error]." Sykes 204 F. 909, 913-914 (CA8 1913). Accord, Crawford 212 183, 194, 260, 264, 53 465 (1909); former Supreme 27.6 (1939) (cited Crim.Proc.Rule 833) ("the option, assigned specified"). 36 conferred 'in miscarriage justice result.' 1046 14)). our collateral-review jurisprudence, "miscarriage justice" actually innocent. Sawyer Whitley, 505 ---- - 2514, 120 269 (1992) (slip op., 4-6). doubt causes sentencing innocent Wiborg 163 632, 1127, 41 289 (1896), never 37 Rather, (1936). proceedings." "standard laid down [was] codified 52(b)," 7, 1042, repeatedly quoted describing review. id., 1046; 13, 13; Silber 370 717, 718, 1287, 1288, 81 798 (1962) curiam); 318 189, 63 549, 554, 704 (1943); Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 150, 239, 60 811, 851, 1129 (1940); see Connor Finch, 431 407, 421, 19, 97 1828, 1837, (civil appeal). Conversely, 38 With basic principles mind, turn case. III 39 24(c). states: "An amounts consents presence. supposes premise nonwaivable, Reply 4, assume correct. essentially 8-9, 4. 40 therefore focus "affect[ed] conclude reason presume here. Assuming arguendo contravene 'the secret,' 785 Virginia Erection Corp., 335 868, 872 (CA4 1964)), primary exclusive secrecy "[I]f harm resulted [of room,] reversal pointless." Watson, 669 1374, 1391 (CA11 1982). intrusions (1967) curiam ) (bailiff's comments "Oh wicked fellow guilty," prejudicial); Patton Yount, 467 1025, 104 2885, 847 (pretrial publicity Holbrook Flynn, 475 560, 1340, 89 525 (presence uniformed state troopers prejudicial). prime example Remmer 347 227, 74 450, 98 654 (1954), outsider communicated appearing offer bribe, Bureau Investigation investigated incident. noted "[t]he sending F.B.I. agent midst investigate conduct bound impress juror," remanded "determine circumstances, thereof juror, interested participate." 229-230, 451. 42 "intrusion" jurisprudence summarized Smith 455 209, 940, 78 (1982): 43 "[D]ue process require placed potentially compromising situation. Were few trials constitutionally acceptable. [I]t virtually impossible shield contact influence theoretically vote. Due capable willing solely judge ever watchful prevent occurrences happen." 217, 946. 44 Patton, 1031-1035, 2888-2890; Turner Louisiana, 379 466, 546, 424 (1965), imagine why egregious bailiff (Parker) apparent bribe official investigation (Remmer) evaluated terms "prejudice," Of course, sufficed establish Sixth Amendment Process Clause, depart normal interpretation 45 question, then, prejudiced presumptively. theory, ways: verbally "body language"; exerted "chilling" 1391; Allison, 472 (CA5 1973). "if fact abided silent indicate views attitude operate restraint jurors' freedom expression action, little substantive [the alternate] juryroom unexamined book admitted evidence." 472. 46 "chilled" deliberation testimony score affidavits Remmer-like hearing, violate 606(b) Evidence, compare 1391-1392, Beasley, 464 468 (CA10 1972), remand hearings requested thus us contains persuaded 47 will purposes incorrect finding prejudicial." 1439. Until close indistinguishable twelve Along office oath, Tr. (Mar. 1987), initial admonishment, 212-218, arguments, set enjoined "according reiterated, "we supposed injunction contravened. "[It is] almost invariable assumption instructions." 1707, 176 (1987). "[We] presum[e] conscious gravity task, closely strive understand, sense of, them." Francis Franklin, 471 307, 324, 1965, 1976, 344 (1985). Strickland 466 668, 694, 2052, 2068, 674 (in assessing ineffective-assistance claim, acted law"). entailed 48 sum, met claim persuade 49 conceded it. affect[ing] reversed, further consistent 50 So ordered. 51 concurring. join Court's add brief statement express holding. notices initiative curiam), awkward say proof concepts, definition none addressed issue. phrased care concepts usual mode ante, ____, apply aggrieved party however, alleged appeal. context, adopts today helpful, gives operative preserved 54 That leads point, force against permitting careful note, submitted practice, premise. Indeed, good reasons suppose product system stable constant structure, varied consent parties. defense counsel, numerous requests rulings pending acquiesce proposal bench concerning composition concentrate matters deem pressing. climate, put position compromises Rules. overruled, systemic costs resulting likely significant seem show avoid 52(a). based premises group dynamics how affected. Defendants seeking experience difficulties proving But, makes today, operation permit withhold demand automatic reversal. djQ whom BLACKMUN join, dissenting. Under unqualified duty dismiss she admit afford stranger access defendants' innocence being decided. abide strictures 'cardinal secret case.' 1964)). view, equally evident implicated 52. Part deemed "affect defendant. least bearing deliberative subject shown, measure effects decision, "undermin[e] structural itself." Vasquez Hillery, 254, 263-264, 617, 623, 598 (racial discrimination grand jury); Gray Mississippi, 648, 2045, 2056, 622 (1987); 669, 2057 (Powell, concurring) (improper exclusion death penalty). call whole. sense, said making candidates (citing supra ). appears twice once describes harmless-error connection Presumably, words used. majority's correct, mandated here; instead, review, concur reasoning lead result. Had objected, nonetheless refused dictates deliberately rejecting Rule's drafters, proper response, 59 Reading way eliminate is. affects rights, "may" reviewing 52(b); distinction discretionary practical incentive raise level. instance, answer ultimate, and, presented: properly exercised After considering degree procedure likelihood reasonable emphasizing significance designed guidance future viewed appropriate response. wide supervision litigation respective Circuits. Ortega-Rodriguez 24, 1199, 1209, 122 581 (1993); Thomas Arn, 140, 146-148, 470-471, 435 Certainly, better positioned evaluate firm enforcement weigh interest relevant considerations. abused broad affirm judgment. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499.

Category: 0