United States v. Becerra, No. 17-30050 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseUnder Guam v. Marquez, 963 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1992), it is structural error not to instruct the jury orally as to the entire substantive law the jury must apply. The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's drug-related conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge plainly erred by failing to deliver an oral charge to the jury in this case. The panel explained that a trial court does not satisfy its duty to instruct jurors in a criminal case just by providing those jurors with a set of written instructions to use during deliberations. Therefore, the panel remanded for a new trial.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Reversing a conviction and remanding for a new trial, the panel held that it is bound by the holdings in Guam v. Marquez, 963 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1992), that a trial court does not satisfy its duty to instruct jurors in a criminal case just by providing jurors with a set of written instructions to use during deliberations, and that when a trial court abdicates its responsibility to charge the jury orally as to the elements of the charged crimes, it commits structural error. The panel held that because the trial judge in this case delivered no such oral charge, the requisites for reversing on plain error review have been met. Dissenting, Judge Graber wrote that the error was harmless in this case in which the court gave the jury written instructions, the final versions of which defendant concedes were correct; the court orally instructed the jury to read those instructions; the jurors confirmed that they had read the written instructions; and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. UNITED STATES V. BECERRA 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.