939 F.3d 995
9th Cir.2019Background:
- Cesar Becerra was tried in Feb. 2016 on six drug- and firearm-related counts and convicted on all counts; he did not object at trial to the court’s plan for instructing the jury.
- The district court provided jurors with written draft jury instructions at trial start, read only preliminary administrative oral instructions, and told jurors to read the written instructions.
- After close of evidence the court collected drafts, issued final written instructions, read aloud only three changed/added instructions, and did not orally read the substantive offense elements.
- The court asked each juror in open court whether they had read the draft instructions; each juror answered “yes”; no oath or further follow-up occurred.
- Becerra appealed, arguing the omission of an oral charge was error; because he did not object below, the Ninth Circuit reviewed under plain-error (Olano) standards.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must orally read substantive jury instructions (elements) to the jury | Becerra: Oral instruction is required; written-only instructions are insufficient (relying on Guam v. Marquez) | Gov’t: Conceded omission was error but argued Marquez’s structural-error holding is not controlling here; harmlessness may be assessed | Court: Binding precedent (Marquez) requires oral instruction of the elements; failure to do so was error and not cured by providing written instructions |
| Whether failure to read instructions aloud is structural error and thus not subject to harmless-error review under plain-error review | Becerra: Omission is structural error that vitiates the trial framework; plain-error prongs satisfied | Gov’t: Even if error, it is not structural here (jurors confirmed reading instructions); harmless beyond a reasonable doubt or at least not plain reversible error | Court: The omission is structural error (Marquez binding); structural error satisfies Olano prongs and reversal is required; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited:
- Guam v. Marquez, 963 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding oral jury instructions of elements required; omission deemed structural error)
- United States v. Noble, 155 F.2d 315 (3d Cir. 1946) (historical support for necessity of oral charging so parties can hear and object)
- United States v. Depue, 912 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2019) (plain-error review framework cited)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (distinguishing structural error from trial error; harmless-error principles)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (structural-error rationale where effects of error are too hard to measure)
- Fulminante v. Arizona, 499 U.S. 306 (1991) (framework distinguishing structural errors that affect trial’s framework)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (errors that vitiate all jury findings are not amenable to harmless-error analysis)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error test for unpreserved error)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (public-trial facts and structural-error analysis)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (discussing plain-error/structural-error interplay)