Calhoun v. United States
568 U.S. 1206
SCOTUS2013Background
- Calhoun stood trial in Texas federal court for participating in a drug conspiracy; the main issue was his knowledge of the drug deal by the group he accompanied.
- Two alleged co-conspirators testified Calhoun knew of the plan; officers testified they discussed drugs with Calhoun before arrest and he had a gun when arrested.
- Calhoun testified he was not part of the plan, did not understand the DEA agents (speaking Spanish), and that he carried a concealed weapon lawfully.
- During cross-examination, the prosecutor pressed Calhoun about why he did not want to be in the hotel room; the question included a racially charged insinuation.
- Calhoun, African-American, claimed the question violated his constitutional rights; defense counsel failed to object at trial.
- The case was appealed; Calhoun sought relief under plain-error review, arguing the remark warranted automatic reversal, which the Fifth Circuit did not grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the prosecutor's racially charged question violate Calhoun's rights? | Calhoun argues it violated equal protection and impartial jury. | Government contends the remark was not prejudicial or reversible error. | The remark was improper; certiorari denied, no automatic reversal. |
| Whether the error requires automatic reversal as plain or structural error? | Calhoun seeks automatic reversal regardless of prejudice. | Error should be reviewed under plain-error forfeiture; not automatic reversal. | Forfeited on appeal; no automatic reversal established here. |
| What is the proper response of the government on appeal regarding the remark? | Government minimized or rationalized the remark. | Government later conceded the remark was improper at this stage. | Statement acknowledged as improper; belated acknowledgment occurred after certiorari was sought. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (racially biased prosecutorial arguments prohibited)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review standard; prejudice required)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework)
- United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 155 F.2d 631 (2d Cir. 1946) (dissenting view on prejudicial influence of government rhetoric)
- Holland v. State, 22 So. 2d 519 (Ala. 1945) (racially charged appeals historically prejudicial in trials)
- Taylor v. State, 100 S.W. 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 1907) (early racial profiling considerations in trial context)