United States v. Fowler - 605 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1979)

Rule:

Plain error is defined as one so obvious that failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, to be noticed only in exceptional circumstances to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

Facts:

Defendant challenged the decision of the district court, which convicted defendant of willful failure to file his tax returns and denied defendant's request for a continuance in order to obtain counsel, forcing defendant to proceed at trial pro se. The defendant argued that putting him to trial pro se violated his right to assistance of counsel. The defendant further alleged that the district court erred when it gave a jury instruction that attempted to explain burden shifting.

Issue:

1. Was the defendant’s right to assistance of counsel violated when he was put to trial pro se? 
2. Did the district court err when it gave a jury instruction that attempted to explain burden shifting? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The district court's decision that convicted defendant of failure to file his tax returns and denied his motion for continuance in order to obtain counsel was affirmed. The court found that the grant or denial of the continuance was in the broad discretion of the trial judge. Furthermore, defendant was given ample opportunity to do so. Thus, the fact that defendant's motion for a continuance was denied and defendant had to proceed at trial pro se did not constitute error. With respect to the jury instruction, the court found that defendant, proceeding without counsel, did not object to the charge. Furthermore, the court found that the instruction, touching at most on the burden of production and buried in a charge that correctly placed the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the government, did not constitute error.