October Term 2003 · Docket 03-167
Does a forfeited Rule 11 error require proof of outcome impact?
The government argues outcome impact is required. The defendant argues the lower court applied the wrong standard.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The government asserts that prior cases require outcome impact for substantial rights.
The defendant asserts that the lower court framework has been applied for eleven years.
chief_justice_rehnquist_closed_the_argument_by_stating_the_case_was_submitted.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-2 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 2-6 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 2-6
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests how courts review forfeited Rule 11 errors. The government seeks a strict outcome test. The defendant seeks a broader review standard.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-2 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-2
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 21, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-14
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to require proof that the error changed the outcome.
The defendant wants the Court to reject the strict outcome impact requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-2 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-2
What each side says
The government argues that an error must affect substantial rights to be reversible.
The defendant argues that the lower court framework for eleven years is flawed.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-2 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-2
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 2-6 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 2-6
Why it matters
This dispute defines the standard for reviewing forfeited procedural errors. It determines how courts weigh Rule 11 violations. It affects the finality of criminal convictions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-2 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-2
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 2-6 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 2-6
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-2 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 16-2 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 16-2
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.