Legal Definitions - plain error

The term plain error refers to a significant and obvious mistake made by a lower court (like a trial court) that an appeals court can choose to correct, even if the lawyers involved did not formally object to it during the original proceedings.

Normally, an appeals court only reviews legal issues that were properly raised and preserved by the attorneys in the trial court. However, the concept of plain error allows an appeals court to step in and address an uncorrected mistake if:

• There was a clear and undeniable legal error.
• The error was obvious from the court record.
• The error seriously affected a party's fundamental legal rights, potentially changing the outcome of the case.
• Not correcting the error would seriously undermine the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process.

This power is discretionary, meaning the appeals court can correct the error but is not always required to do so, even if all conditions are met. It's often invoked in criminal cases to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial.

Examples of Plain Error:

• Incorrect Jury Instructions in a Criminal Case:

  Imagine a criminal trial where the judge, when explaining the law to the jury, accidentally misstates a crucial element that the prosecution must prove for a conviction. For instance, if the crime requires proof of "intent to defraud," but the judge mistakenly tells the jury they only need to find "recklessness." The defense attorney, perhaps due to an oversight, does not object to this incorrect instruction.

  How this illustrates plain error:

  • There is a clear error because the judge provided an incorrect statement of the law to the jury.
  • The error is plain or obvious because the correct legal standard is well-established, and the judge's deviation would be evident from the trial transcript.
  • It affects the defendant's substantial rights because the jury was instructed on a lower burden of proof than legally required, potentially leading to an unjust conviction.
  • An appeals court might choose to correct this to uphold the fairness and integrity of the judicial system, ensuring that convictions are based on correct legal principles.

• Egregious Prosecutorial Misconduct During Closing Arguments:

  Consider a trial where, during the closing arguments, the prosecutor makes highly inflammatory remarks, such as personally vouching for the credibility of a witness or directly appealing to the jury's emotions rather than the evidence, stating, "You must convict this monster to protect our community!" The defense counsel fails to object to these improper statements.

  How this illustrates plain error:

  • The prosecutor's remarks constitute an error because they violate established rules of courtroom conduct and fair argument.
  • The error is plain because the statements are recorded and are clearly outside the bounds of proper legal advocacy.
  • It affects the defendant's substantial rights by potentially prejudicing the jury and denying the defendant a verdict based solely on the evidence presented, rather than emotional appeals.
  • An appeals court might intervene to correct this to maintain the reputation and integrity of the courts, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and professionally, free from undue influence.