United States v. Saul Ramirez-Castillo, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8144

Appellant was convicted and sentenced after a jury trial in which the jury made two factual determinations but never rendered a general guilty/not guilty verdict.
The charges involved possession of two prohibited objects by an inmate under 18 U.S.C. § 1791; Exhibit 1 was argued to be a weapon, Exhibit 2 to be possessed.
The district court gave a two-question special verdict form and instructions that treated certain facts as established, effectively directing guilt for the government.
The jury answered yes to both questions on the form, but did not determine all elements required for a general verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellant was sentenced to 33 months, to be served consecutively, based on the court’s judgment of guilt.
The panel held the district court’s approach violated the jury-trial guarantees and vacated the conviction and sentence, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by using a special verdict form instead of a general verdict.	Ramirez-Castillo argues the jury was not asked to determine guilt on all elements of the charged offense.	Ramirez-Castillo's counsel accepted the form; the district court believed it aligned with agreed facts and elements.	Yes; it violated Sixth Amendment rights by bypassing a general guilty verdict.
Whether the error is plain and structural, warranting correction on appeal.	Plain error and structural error because the jury never rendered a guilt finding and the court directed a verdict for the government.	The government argues invited error; the record shows no objection.	Yes; the error is plain and structural, affecting the fairness of the trial.
Whether the error affected substantial rights and requires reversal.	Because the jury never determined guilt, the sentencing based on a judge’s finding is unreliable.	Evidence of guilt was substantial; still, the proper remedy is remediation of the trial defect.	Yes; the error affected substantial rights and necessitated vacation of conviction and sentence.

Gaudin v. United States, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1995) (jury must determine all elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (jury must determine guilt; court cannot direct verdict)
Muse v. United States, 83 F.3d 672 (4th Cir. 1996) (jury determines fact-finding and applies the law)
Johnson v. United States, 71 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 1995) (after trial, courts may not instruct that a fact is conclusively established)
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (U.S. 1986) (directing a verdict for the prosecuting party violates the jury trial guarantee)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard and discretion to correct forfeited errors)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (structural errors defy harmless-error analysis)
United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2013) (discernment of plain error and structural error standards)
Sparf v. United States, Not included in list (Not applicable) (cited in context of jury trial principles (not required in output))