Also known as: palpable errors · plain error
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A clear and obvious mistake by the trial court that affects a defendant's substantial rights. An appellate court may correct the mistake on review even though the defendant raised no objection at trial.
Derek Lewis stood trial for bribery. The judge met privately with a holdout juror about her work schedule without counsel present. Defense counsel raised no objection. On appeal Lewis argued the meeting coerced the verdict. The court reviewed the contact under the plain-error standard because the error was unpreserved.
Attorney Daniel Ross faced mail-fraud charges. The judge told the jury it could treat Ross's decision not to testify as evidence of guilt. Counsel stayed silent. On appeal the court examined whether the instruction satisfied the four-part plain-error test before deciding whether to reverse.
Daniel Reyes stood trial for bid-rigging. The court admitted a recorded confession by a nontestifying codefendant that directly named Reyes. Counsel made no objection. On appeal Reyes contended the admission violated confrontation rights and asked the court to treat the error as plain.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uriah managed a retail store and faced embezzlement charges. The prosecutor told the jury to hold Uriah accountable for offering no explanation of missing cash. Counsel did not object. After conviction new counsel moved for a new trial, arguing the remark constituted plain error that affected substantial rights.
The appellate court reviews the claim for plain error. The defendant must show an error that is clear or obvious, that affects substantial rights, and that seriously undermines the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.
Supporting sources
No. Even constitutional errors receive plain-error review when unpreserved. The defendant must still demonstrate that the error affected substantial rights and seriously impacted the fairness of the trial.
Supporting sources
Reversal occurs only if the error affected substantial rights. Overwhelming admissible evidence of guilt can render the error harmless, so the conviction stands despite the mistake.
Supporting sources
The court applies the four-part test. It considers whether the remark was error, whether the error was obvious, whether it likely changed the outcome, and whether it seriously undermined the integrity of the proceedings.
Supporting sources
…parties are prohibited from operating sports-gambling schemes precisely when state law authorizes them to do so.[^maj-38] This plain error pervasively infects the Court’s severability analysis. The Court strikes Congress’ ban on state “sponsor[ship]” and “promot[ion]” of sports-gambling schemes because it has (mistakenly)…