Whether a conviction following incorrect jury instructions, failure of the petit jury to make a finding on an essential element of a crime, and an appellate court's reliance on facts not shown to the jury, seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Sixth Amendment requires that no person be convicted of a felony except on a finding by a jury that the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt for every element of a crime. Appellate courts agree that conviction in violation of this provision is error. They disagree, however, on whether to remedy such errors when applying the fourth prong of the Olano plain error test. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993). They further disagree as to which materials appellate courts can consider when deciding this question. The fourth prong of Olano asks whether an error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Seventh Circuit err in using Mr. Maez’s stipulation to one element of the offense as proof of another element of the offense, effectively relieving the government of its burden of proof under the third prong of the Olano test? 2. Does a conviction following incorrect jury instructions, failure of the petit jury to make a finding on an essential element of a crime, and an appellate court’s reliance on facts not shown to the jury, seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings? 3. In applying the fourth prong of the plain error test from United States v. Olano to a jury verdict with a missing element, can appellate judges rely on information that was not presented to the jury in the first instance? ii