Section 52 - Harmless and Plain Error

1 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Ten Common Misconceptions About Federal Criminal Appeals

    Oberheiden P.C.Nick OberheidenJuly 26, 2023

    t apply.10 Untrue “Facts” About the Federal Appeals ProcessSo, if you need to pursue a federal criminal appeal, where should you begin? Making sure you avoid uninformed decisions based on these 10 untrue “facts” is a good place to start:1. An Appeal Provides a Second Chance To Argue the CaseFiling a federal criminal appeal does not provide a second chance to argue the case. While the focus at trial is on determining whether the prosecution is able to meet its burden of proof, at the appellate level, the focus is on whether any errors during trial prejudiced the outcome. At the federal level, judges in federal appellate courts do not review the factual record and make a determination regarding the defendant’s guilt. Instead, they review the trial proceedings that are the subject of the appeal to determine if a judicial error led to an unjust result.While the federal appellate process is intended to provide a venue for correcting errors during trial, not all errors warrant an appeal. As Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) plainly states, “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”2. Issues Cannot Be Raised on Appeal if Not Preserved During Trial While it is commonly understood that issues must be preserved at the trial level in order to provide grounds for an appeal, this isn’t true in all cases. While there are important benefits to preserving issues during trial (as discussed below, parties and their counsel can challenge “unpreserved” errors in two circumstances: (i) if the error was made in a court order (seeFRCP 51(a)); or, (ii) the error constitutes a “plain error” under FRCP 52(b).As the Legal Information Institute nicely summarizes:“Although an appellate court generally only reviews errors brought to its attention by the litigants, it has the discretion to correct plain errors that were not addressed, or forfeited, when not doing so would affect the integrity and reputation of the courts. . . . [T]his power is permissive a