Leiloni Blake Smith v. United States

This Court has held that plain errors at trial “affect substantial rights” and thus may require reversal of a conviction if there is a “reasonable probability” that the errors impacted the outcome of the proceedings, and that—to meet this standard—a defendant need not prove that a different outcome was more likely than not. Is a reviewing court empowered to affirm convictions despite multiple plain errors that directly undermined the defense because, in its judgment, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, as the Tenth Circuit majority did in this case? Or is the court obliged to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defense and reverse the convictions if a reasonable juror could have declined to convict absent the plain errors, as the dissenting judge concluded?