Also known as: plain error · plain-error doctrine · plain error rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine permitting appellate courts to review unpreserved errors when the error is plain, affects substantial rights, and seriously undermines the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
Paul Peterson stood trial for wire fraud. The judge instructed the jury that it could infer guilt from Peterson's decision not to testify. Defense counsel raised no objection. On appeal the court applied the plain error doctrine because the instruction violated the Fifth Amendment and the record showed the comment likely influenced the verdict.
Pablo Perez was convicted of conspiracy. At trial the government introduced out-of-court statements without objection from defense counsel. On appeal Perez argued the statements were inadmissible hearsay. The court reviewed the claim under the plain error doctrine and found the error obvious and prejudicial to substantial rights.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Penelope Price faced embezzlement charges. The prosecution introduced bank records without proper foundation and defense counsel did not object. After conviction Price challenged the admission on appeal. The appellate court applied the plain error doctrine because the error was clear from the record and affected the outcome.
Preston Pratt moved to suppress evidence after the jury was sworn. The district court denied the motion as untimely. On appeal Pratt argued the evidence should have been excluded. The court of appeals declined to find plain error because the delay was not justified and the evidence did not affect substantial rights.
Pedro Pacheco was tried for mail fraud. The judge instructed the jury that it could consider Pacheco's failure to testify as evidence of guilt. Counsel made no objection. On appeal the court examined the claim under the plain error doctrine and held that the instruction violated the Fifth Amendment yet did not require reversal given the strength of the government's case.
Paula Pierce was convicted of theft. During closing argument the prosecutor commented on Pierce's silence. Defense counsel remained silent. After the verdict new counsel raised the issue on appeal. The court applied the plain error doctrine and concluded the comment did not seriously affect the fairness of the proceedings.
An appellant must show there was an error, the error was plain or obvious, the error affected substantial rights, and the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. All four prongs must be met before an appellate court will reverse.
Supporting sources
The doctrine is codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) and Federal Rule of Evidence 103(e) for criminal and evidentiary matters. A parallel provision exists in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(d)(2) for unpreserved jury-instruction errors in civil cases, though courts apply it more sparingly in civil litigation.
Supporting sources
Plain error review applies when a party fails to make a timely and specific objection on the record. Courts require the error to be obvious and to affect substantial rights. Routine evidentiary rulings rarely satisfy the demanding standard.
Supporting sources
Rule 52(a) requires disregard of any error that does not affect substantial rights. Rule 52(b) permits review of unpreserved errors only when they meet the four-part plain error test. The two rules work together to balance finality with correction of serious miscarriages of justice.
Supporting sources
…. . in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception," ante , at 865, the "substance" part of the equation demands that plain error be acknowledged and eliminated. Roe was plainly wrong—even on the Court's methodology of "reasoned judgment," and even more so (of course) if the proper criteria of text and tradition are…