United States v. Olano

1993-04-26

Headline: Court reversed the appeals court and allowed convictions to stand despite alternates sitting in jury deliberations because defendants failed to show prejudice, limiting automatic reversal for similar jury rule errors affecting defendants.

Holding: The Court held that allowing alternates to sit in on jury deliberations violated the rule but did not justify reversal under plain-error review because the defendants failed to show the alternates' presence prejudiced their substantial rights.

Real World Impact:

Limits automatic reversal for procedural jury-rule violations without a showing of prejudice.
Requires defendants to show alternates' presence affected the verdict to win on appeal.
Encourages raising objections at trial to preserve appellate relief options.

Topics: jury alternates, jury deliberations, criminal appeals, trial procedure

Summary

Background

Two former board members of a savings-and-loan were tried together on federal charges arising from an alleged kickback scheme. Fourteen jurors, including two alternates, were selected for the long trial. Near the end of trial the judge—after consulting defense counsel—permitted the alternates to sit in the jury room during deliberations but instructed them not to participate. One alternate left during deliberations; the other remained. The defendants were convicted and appealed, and the Ninth Circuit vacated remaining convictions, calling the alternates’ presence inherently prejudicial.

Reasoning

The Court framed the issue as whether the alternates’ presence was a “plain error” that a court of appeals may correct under Rule 52(b). It explained that Rule 52(b) allows correction only for errors that are plain, affect substantial rights (usually meaning prejudice), and—in the court of appeals’ discretion—seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The Court assumed the alternates’ presence violated the rule and was plain, but emphasized that the defendants bore the burden to show prejudice. Because the record contained no specific evidence that the alternates influenced deliberations, and because jurors are presumed to follow instructions, the Court held the defendants did not show affected substantial rights.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and left the convictions in place. The decision means defendants who did not object at trial must normally show actual prejudice from alternates’ presence to obtain relief on appeal. Trial judges still should follow jury rules, but appellate relief is discretionary when a defendant forfeited an objection.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring opinion stressed burden-shifting and the independent importance of the rule barring alternates from deliberations. A dissent argued that allowing alternates into deliberations undermines jury integrity and should be treated as affecting substantial rights without a specific showing of prejudice.