United States v. Young
470 U.S. 1 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a prosecutor makes improper remarks in a rebuttal argument in response to improper attacks by defense counsel, an appellate court cannot reverse a conviction based on those remarks unless the defendant made a timely objection at trial, or the remarks constitute plain error that undermines the fundamental fairness of the trial and results in a miscarriage of justice.
Facts:
- Billy G. Young, vice president of Compton Petroleum Corporation, entered into contracts to deliver 'sweet' crude oil to Apeo Oil Corporation.
- Between January and September 1977, Compton delivered approximately 205,000 barrels of oil to Apeo.
- Over half of this oil, about 117,250 barrels, was actually less valuable fuel oil, not crude oil.
- Compton's invoices, which Young was involved in, falsely certified that all the oil delivered was crude oil.
- Young arranged for a brokerage firm to falsely 're-certify' the fuel oil as crude oil for a commission.
- To disguise the fuel oil, Young had it blended with condensate, a liquid from natural gas wells.
- In September 1977, an Apeo technician performed a distillation test and discovered the oil was not crude oil as contracted.
- Apeo's discovery prompted an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy G. Young was charged with mail fraud, making false statements, and other federal crimes in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, a federal trial court.
- A jury convicted Young on the mail fraud and false statement counts but acquitted him of interstate transportation of stolen property.
- Young, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed Young's conviction, holding that the prosecutor's rebuttal argument constituted plain error, and remanded for a new trial.
- The United States, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's improper rebuttal argument, made in response to improper attacks by defense counsel and without a timely objection from the defense, constitute plain error requiring the reversal of a conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. A prosecutor's improper rebuttal remarks, provoked by defense counsel's improper attacks and not objected to at trial, do not constitute plain error unless they undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial and result in a miscarriage of justice. The prosecutor's comments must be viewed in the context of the entire trial, including the defense counsel's 'opening salvo.' While both sides engaged in improper argument, a criminal conviction should not be lightly overturned. Under the plain error standard of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), an unobjected-to error must be a 'particularly egregious error' that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Here, the prosecutor's response, though constituting error, was invited by the defense's attacks on the prosecution's integrity. Given the overwhelming evidence of Young's guilt, the prosecutor's comments did not rise to the level of plain error or contribute to a miscarriage of justice.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
No, but the case should be remanded. The Court correctly holds that prosecutors have no 'right' of reply to defense improprieties and that the prosecutor's comments here constituted error. However, the Court should not have conducted the plain-error inquiry itself. The majority's 'invited error' analysis is flawed because it minimizes the gravity of the prosecutor's gross misconduct and fails to hold prosecutors to the high ethical standard required of them. The proper course of action is to remand the case to the Court of Appeals for a proper inquiry into whether the prosecutor's misconduct was plain error that either prejudiced the verdict or seriously affected the integrity of the judicial proceedings.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The prosecutor's misconduct was obviously prejudicial and the Court of Appeals correctly determined that it constituted plain error. The Court has unanimously agreed that the prosecutor's comments were error and violated professional ethical rules. The only remaining question is whether the prejudice was sufficient to warrant reversal. The Court of Appeals, being familiar with the standards for harmless and plain error, expressly concluded that the remarks were 'sufficiently egregious as to constitute plain error.' A due respect for the judgment of the circuit judges warrants affirming their decision rather than asking them to perform the same analysis again.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'invited response' doctrine, clarifying that it does not grant prosecutors a license to engage in misconduct but rather provides context for a plain error analysis when the defense fails to object. The ruling establishes a high bar for reversing a conviction based on unobjected-to prosecutorial remarks, requiring that the error be so severe as to cause a 'miscarriage of justice.' It strongly reinforces the necessity of contemporaneous objections to preserve issues for appeal, placing the onus on defense counsel to police improper arguments at trial rather than relying on appellate review to cure the error. The case serves as a practical lesson on the limits of appellate review under the plain error standard in the face of trial misconduct by both parties.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Young