Also known as:plain-error review · plain error · plain-error doctrine · Rule 52(b)
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review in criminal cases that permits a court to address an obvious error affecting substantial rights even when the defendant did not object at trial.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Unobjected Burden Shift in Embezzlement Trial
Pierre Poulin managed a retail store and stood trial in federal court for embezzlement. The prosecutor told the jury during closing that Poulin had to prove where the missing cash had gone. Defense counsel stayed silent. On appeal the court reviewed the comment under plain error review because it affected Poulin's substantial rights by shifting the burden of proof.
Erroneous Silence Instruction in Mail Fraud Case
Pedro Pacheco faced federal mail fraud charges. The trial court instructed the jury that Pacheco's failure to testify could serve as evidence of guilt. Defense counsel did not object. The appellate court considered the instruction on plain error review because the error was plain and implicated Pacheco's Fifth Amendment rights.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Federal Rules
Hornbooks
Study Supplements
United States v. Olano507 U.S. 725, 732–37 (1993)
Unpreserved Sentencing Factor Error
Pamela Phillips was convicted of a capital offense in federal court. The judge found aggravating factors that increased her sentence without submitting them to the jury. Defense counsel raised no objection at trial. The appellate court reached the claim on plain error review because the error affected Phillips's substantial rights under the Sixth Amendment.
Ring v. Arizona536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)
Jury Trial Waiver Issue on Appeal
Paul Peterson was tried in federal court after the government objected to his jury trial request. The trial court denied the request without a proper hearing. Defense counsel did not object contemporaneously. The appellate court examined the denial under plain error review because the error implicated Peterson's fundamental right to a jury trial.
Singer v. United States380 U.S. 24, 35 (1965)
Unpreserved Second Amendment Claim
Parker Phillips was convicted under a federal firearms statute. The trial court rejected a constitutional challenge to the statute without defense objection. On appeal the court considered the claim under plain error review because the error affected Phillips's substantial rights by potentially invalidating the conviction.
United States v. Miller307 U.S. 174
Failure to Object to Evidentiary Ruling
Phuong Pham was convicted after the trial court admitted certain testimony without a timely defense objection. New counsel argued on appeal that the admission violated Pham's rights. The appellate court applied plain error review because the error was plain on the record and affected Pham's substantial rights.
Harris v. United States375 A.2d 505, 508 (D.C. 1977)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When may an appellate court review an error that defense counsel did not object to at trial?+
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) permits review when the error is plain and affects substantial rights. The rule balances finality with the need to correct serious errors that undermine fairness. Courts apply a four-part test requiring an error that is plain, affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.
Supporting sources
Does a prosecutor's comment shifting the burden of proof during closing argument qualify for plain error review?+
Yes when the comment directly undermines the presumption of innocence and likely influenced the verdict. The error is plain because it violates a core constitutional protection. Courts may reach the issue even without an objection because the remark affects substantial rights.
Supporting sources
What must a defendant show to obtain reversal under plain error review for an unobjected jury instruction?+
The defendant must establish that the instruction was erroneous, the error was plain, it affected substantial rights, and it seriously undermined the fairness of the proceedings. An instruction permitting the jury to treat silence as evidence of guilt satisfies the first three prongs when the evidence of guilt is not overwhelming.
Supporting sources
Does strong evidence of guilt prevent plain error review of a constitutional instructional error?+
No. The strength of the evidence is relevant to whether the error affected substantial rights, but the court may still consider the claim if the error is plain and constitutional in nature. Overwhelming independent evidence may lead the court to conclude the error did not affect the outcome.
Supporting sources
505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992)Constitutional Law
…. . 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…