United States v. Turrietta, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18364

Turrietta was convicted of assaulting a federal officer in a seven-hour, two-day trial with two juries from the same venire; the jury seated for Turrietta’s trial was never sworn, though the other jury in the related case was sworn.
Defense called only David Turrietta; Gilbert did not testify.
The judge and defense counsel discussed whether the Turrietta jury had been sworn; counsel later swore in an affidavit claiming no oath occurred.
Turrietta’s attorney preserved the issue only after the verdict, effectively forfeiting the objection under contemporaneous-objection rules.
The government concedes the Turrietta jury was not sworn; the issue is whether this forfeited error can be reviewed for plain error.
The court applied the plain error standard under Rule 52 and held that even if an oath was constitutionally required, the error was not plain or prejudicial under the circumstances.
The opinion discusses the historical and theoretical basis for a sworn jury, but ultimately determines the error does not warrant reversal given the trial’s strength of evidence and the defense’s strategic silence.
The decision affirms the conviction, emphasizing strategic silence does not permit relief and that Rule 52(b) does not require correction for forfeited errors absent a clear substantial-rights impact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unsworn jury violated Turrietta’s right to a jury	Turrietta argues Sixth Amendment requires a sworn jury.	Turrietta contends lack of oath deprived due process and trial integrity.	Not clearly established as plain error; remedy denied.
Whether the error is reviewable under plain error	Turrietta’s error is plain due to oath deficiency.	Oath status is unsettled post-Williams; not plainly erroneous.	Plain error review applied but failed prongs.
Whether the error affected Turrietta’s substantial rights	An unsworn jury could prejudice the outcome.	Evidence was strong; minimal prejudice presumed impractical.	No substantial-rights prejudice shown.
Whether the error is structural	Error is structural, affecting fairness and integrity.	Structural error not clearly proven.	Not treated as structural error for this case.
Whether waiver/forfeiture bars relief	Defense waived by not objecting earlier.	Waiver/forfeiture doctrine bars review.	Government waiver arguments declined; court discusses waiver parameters.

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (forfeiture rule; plain error standard dolorous to correct forfeited error)
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970) ( Sixteenth Amendment; modern jury size and function considerations)
Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1930) (trial by jury interpreted; common-law features not absolute constitutional requiremen t)
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1972) (unanimity in jury verdicts not constitutionally required in all cases)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error review; strategic silence as forfeiture)