Cite as: 515 U. S. 506 (1995)
Rehnquist, C. J., concurring
court of appeals cannot correct an error pursuant to Rule 52(b) unless the error is clear under current law." Ibid. Third, the plain error must " 'affec[t] substantial rights,' " ibid., i. e., "in most cases it means that the error must have been prejudicial," ibid. Finally, if these three prerequisites are met, the decision to correct forfeited error remains within the sound discretion of the court of appeals. A court of appeals, however, should not exercise that discretion unless the error " ' "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." ' " Id., at 732.
In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Court concludes that "it is fair to say that we cannot hold for respondent today while still adhering to the reasoning and the holding of [Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263 (1929)]." Ante, at 519-520. Before today, every Court of Appeals that has considered the issue, except for the Ninth Circuit, has held that the question of materiality is one of law. See 28 F. 3d, at 955 (Kozinski, J., dissenting) (collecting cases). Thus, it is certainly subject to dispute whether the error in this case was "clear under current law." Olano, supra, at 734. The Court, however, does not review the Court of Appeals' determination that the failure to submit the issue of materiality to the jury constituted "plain error." 28 F. 3d, at 952.
527
Page: Index Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22Last modified: October 4, 2007