Court Opinion

ID: 9857001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:10:29.146752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:49.390144
License: Public Domain

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s sufficiency of the evidence analysis and its conclusion that we should apply the standard prejudice framework to constructive amendment claims on plain error review and not presume prejudice. However, I adopt that conclusion only because of my agreement with the majority that many so-called constructive amendment claims lend themselves readily to ordinary plain error analysis. This case illustrates that point well.
For me, this rationale alone justifies our conclusion that the standard prejudice *66framework should apply to unpreserved constructive amendment claims. I specifically do not join the majority’s analysis of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence related to structural errors and the compatibility of a presumption of prejudice with the Supreme Court’s plain error jurisprudence. In my view, that analysis is not essential to our conclusion on the consequences of a constructive amendment that was not the subject of a timely objection.