Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Silber v. United States

Silber v. United States, 370 U.S. 717 (1962)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1962-06-25
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that defect in indictment not raised before either the Supreme Court or the court of appeals could be noticed as plain error
  • recognizing the Court's power to sua sponte notice and correct a plain error even though it was not assigned or specified
  • reviewing an issue decided by the district court, even though it was not raised on appeal
  • stating the grounds on which an appellate court may, sua sponte, notice error
  • reversing judgment for plain error as a result of a defective indictment
  • “The Court has ‘the power to notice a plain error though it is not assigned or specified.’”
  • appellate courts may on their own motion notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if they are obvious or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness of the proceedings
  • defendant was convicted after a trial and there was no Rule 11 hearing; "the trial court squarely considered and decided the issue" that the Court reviewed on its own motion

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Silber v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
254 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Criminal Law & Procedure — Indictment An indictment that fails to specify the essential facts constituting the offense charged is defective; where the indictment under which a defendant was tried is identical to indictments held defective, the judgment of conviction must be reversed. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749
  2. Criminal Law & Procedure — Plain Error Although appellate courts ordinarily will not take note of errors not called to the attention of the Court of Appeals or properly raised on review, that rule is not without exception; the court has the power to notice a plain error though it is not assigned or specified. Brotherhood of Carpenters v. United States, 330 U.S. 395, 412; United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160
  3. Criminal Law & Procedure — Appeals In exceptional circumstances, especially in criminal cases, appellate courts may, in the public interest and of their own motion, notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160
Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed. Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749. The indictment upon which the petitioner was tried was identical to those held defective in Russell. The petitioner’s timely motion to dismiss the indictment, made in accord with Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 12 (b)(2), was erroneously denied by the District Court.

Although the trial court squarely considered and decided the issue raised by the motion to dismiss, it was apparently not presented to the Court of Appeals and was not briefed or argued in this Court. While ordinarily we do not take note of errors not called to the attention of the Court of Appeals nor properly raised here, that rule *718 is not without exception. The Court has “the power to notice a ‘plain error’ though it is not assigned or specified,” Brotherhood of Carpenters v. United States, 330 U. S. 395, 412. * “In exceptional circumstances, especially in criminal cases, appellate courts, in the public interest, may, of their own motion, notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious, or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Atkinson, 297 U. S. 157, 160. Our own rules provide that “the court, at its option, may notice a plain error not presented.” Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rule 40 (1) (d)(2). See also Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 52 (b).

Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice White took no part in the decision of this case. Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749, 779, 781.
*

See Brasfield v. United States, 272 U. S. 448, 450; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 45; Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 362. See also Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U. S. 22, 34.