Also known as: integrity of judicial proceedings · public reputation of judicial proceedings · fairness of judicial proceedings · judicial integrity · administration of justice · appearance of justice
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A discretionary consideration in plain error review that permits an appellate court to decline correction of a forfeited error unless the error seriously undermines the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Prosecutors indicted Felicity French in the Southern District for mortgage fraud even though all loan applications were prepared and funded in the Northern District. Defense counsel failed to object at trial. On appeal the court considered whether the venue error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before deciding whether to correct it.
Judge Forrest Falconer spoke at a fundraising dinner for a civic group that practiced invidious discrimination. No party objected during the proceedings. On appeal the court examined whether the judge's participation seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before exercising discretion to reverse.
Attorney Francois Fortier knowingly assisted a client in deleting responsive discovery documents during litigation. Opposing counsel did not object at trial. On appeal the court weighed whether the lawyer's actions seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before deciding to reverse.
Judge Fatima Flores engaged in voluntary illegal drug use and was chronically unavailable for hearings despite entering treatment. No objection was raised during proceedings. On appeal the court assessed whether these actions seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before ordering removal.
Judge Farid Farahani accepted an award at a fundraising event for a bar-related organization. No party objected during the proceedings. On appeal the court considered whether the judge's participation seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before exercising discretion to reverse.
The trial court instructed the jury that it could consider Floyd Franklin's silence as evidence of guilt. Defense counsel did not object. On appeal the court evaluated whether the constitutional error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings before deciding whether to reverse under plain error review.
In 1986, Guy W. Olano, Jr., and Raymond M. Gray were indicted in the Western District of Washington on multiple federal charges for their participation in a loan kickback scheme while serving on the board of a savings and loan association. Their joint jury trial with five codefendants commenced in March 1987. All parties agreed that fourteen jurors would be selected, with the two alternates identified before deliberations began. On May 26, 1987, shortly before the end of the three-month trial, the district court suggested allowing the two alternate jurors to attend deliberations without participating. The court raised the matter again the next day in an exchange with Gray's counsel. On May 28, the final day of trial, counsel for defendant Davy Hilling gave an affirmative response that all fourteen could deliberate, with instructions that the alternates not participate; Olano's and Gray's counsel were present and did not object. The district court instructed the jurors that the alternates would attend deliberations but must not participate. One alternate was excused during deliberations at his own request, while the other remained until the jury returned its verdict. Both Olano and Gray were convicted. Olano and Gray appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed certain counts for insufficient evidence and then considered the presence of alternate jurors during deliberations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c). Because no objection had been made at trial, the court applied a plain error standard, held that the violation was inherently prejudicial, and reversed the remaining convictions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the standard for plain error review by the courts of appeals under Rule 52(b).
The defendant must demonstrate that the unpreserved error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Courts apply this prong sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances even when the first three prongs are met.
…informs us that the President occupies a "unique position in the constitutional scheme," including responsibilities for the administration of justice, foreign affairs, and management of the Executive Branch. Ante , at 749-750. True as this may be, it says nothing about why a "unique" rule of immunity should apply to the President. The…
…of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (1944) 185. : See Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, 29 A. B. A. Rep., Pt. 1, 395; id. 11, 55; 31 id. 505; 33 id. 27, 542; 34 id. 61, 578; 35 id. 56, 614; 36 id. 448; 37 id. 42, 557; 38 id. 44, 546; 39 id. 31, 575; 41 id. 36, 540; 2 A. B. A.…
…discretion of the court of appeals, and the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” United States v. Young, 470 U. S. 1, 15 (1985) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U. S. 157, 160 (1936)). A Rule 52(b) defines a single category of forfeited-but-reversible…
…and a simple historical fact, the fact/law distinction at times has turned on a determination that, as a matter of the sound administration of justice, one judicial
Strong evidence of guilt can support a finding that the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Appellate courts weigh the overall fairness of the trial against the nature of the error before exercising discretion to reverse.
A constitutional error such as an improper burden-shifting comment may satisfy the first three plain error elements yet still fail the fourth prong if the trial as a whole remained fair. Courts require a showing that the error undermined public confidence in the judicial process.
Failure to object weighs against finding that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The plain error doctrine encourages timely objections so that errors can be corrected without appellate intervention.