United States v. Marcus (2009)
- Docket
- 08-1341
- Decided
- 2009-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the Second Circuit depart from the Supreme Court's interpretation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) by adopting the "plain-error" standard of review for an asserted Ex Post Facto violation? Conclusion: Yes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Second Circuit's plain-error standard stands in conflict with the Court's own interpretation of the plain-error rule. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen G. Breyer stated that an appellate court may, in its discretion, correct an error not raised at trial only when the appellant demonstrates that: (1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear and obvious; (3) the error affected the appellant's substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Here, the Second Circuit's standard conflicted with the third and fourth of these criteria. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He noted that while the Second Circuit reached its decision in an unusual manner, he agreed with its conclusion. Justice Stevens thought the Second Circuit properly exercised its discretion to remedy an error by ordering a retrial.