Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 2 (1997)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

462

JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

pursuant to Rule 30. However, Rule 52(b) mitigates Rule 30 and, contrary to Johnson's argument, governs her direct appeal. The Olano test for applying Rule 52(b) requires that there be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. If these three conditions are met, an appellate court may exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Pp. 465-466. (b) The first prong of Olano is satisfied here, as Gaudin must be applied to Johnson's case on direct review. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 328. The second prong is met as well. In a case such as this—where the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal—it is sufficient that the error be plain at the time of appellate consideration. Even assuming that the third prong is also satisfied, a court must still determine whether the forfeited error meets the fourth prong before it may exercise its discretion to correct the error. In this case the fourth question must be answered in the negative. Materiality was essentially uncontroverted at trial and has remained so on appeal. Johnson has presented no plausible argument that her false statement under oath—lying about the source of the money she used to improve her home—was somehow not material to the grand jury investigation. It would be the reversal of her conviction, not the failure to notice the error, that would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Pp. 466-470.

82 F. 3d 429, affirmed.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, which was unanimous except insofar as Scalia, J., did not join Parts II-B and II-C.

William J. Sheppard argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were D. Gray Thomas and Elizabeth L. White.

Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause for

the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Dellinger, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, and Jonathan E. Nuechterlein.*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Neal Goldfarb, Barbara Bergman, and Blair G. Brown; and for David R. Knoll by Stephen L. Braga.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007