United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Olano, Jr.,(D) and Raymond M. Gray, (D1) served on the board of directors of a savings and loan association. In 1986, the two were indicted in the Western District of Washington on multiple federal charges for their participation in an elaborate loan 'kickback' scheme. All of the parties including 5 other defendants being tried agreed that 14 jurors would be selected to hear the case and that the 2 alternates would be identified before deliberations began. The issue of whether the two alternates could deliberate was brought up by the court on three occasions. Counsel for one of the defendants, D3 made no objection to that process. Both D's and D1's counsel were present and made no objections. The District Court concluded that D3's counsel was speaking for the other defendants as well as his own client. None of the other counsel intervened during the colloquy between the District Court and D3's counsel. No objections were made when the court instructed the jurors that the two alternates would be permitted to attend deliberations. Ds were convicted on a number of charges. They appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Because Ds had not objected to the alternates' presence, the court applied a 'plain error' standard under Rule 52(b). The court found that Rule 24(c) was violated in the instant case, because 'the district court did not obtain individual waivers from each defendant personally, either orally or in writing.' It then held that the presence of alternates in violation of Rule 24(c) was 'inherently prejudicial' and reversible per se. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the standard for 'plain error' review by the Courts of Appeals under Rule 52(b).