United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case that distinguished between forfeiture and waiver. Quoting from Johnson v. Zerbst, 304U.S. 458 (1938), the Court noted, "Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the "intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.... Whether a particular right is waivable; whether the defendant must participate personally in the waiver; whether certain procedures are required for waiver; and whether the defendant's choice must be particularly informed or voluntary, all depend on the right at stake."
113 S. Ct. 1770; 123 L. Ed. 2d 508; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 2986; 61 U.S.L.W. 4421; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3040; 93 Daily Journal DAR 5188; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 205
O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas
Concurrence
Kennedy
Dissent
Stevens, joined by White, Blackmun
According to the Court, mere forfeiture, as opposed to waiver, does not extinguish an "error" under Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. If a legal rule was violated during the District Court proceedings, and if the defendant did not waive the rule, then there has been an "error" within the meaning of Rule 52(b) despite the absence of a timely objection.
united, states, olano, 1993, united, states, supreme, court, case, that, distinguished, between, forfeiture, waiver, quoting, from, johnson, zerbst, 1938, court, noted, whereas, forfeiture, failure, make, timely, assertion, right, waiver, intentional, relinqui. United States v Olano 507 U S 725 1993 was a United States Supreme Court case that distinguished between forfeiture and waiver Quoting from Johnson v Zerbst 304 U S 458 1938 the Court noted Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right Whether a particular right is waivable whether the defendant must participate personally in the waiver whether certain procedures are required for waiver and whether the defendant s choice must be particularly informed or voluntary all depend on the right at stake United States v OlanoSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued December 9 1992Decided April 26 1993Full case nameUnited States Petitioner v Guy W Olano Jr and Raymond M GrayCitations507 U S 725 more 113 S Ct 1770 123 L Ed 2d 508 1993 U S LEXIS 2986 61 U S L W 4421 93 Cal Daily Op Service 3040 93 Daily Journal DAR 5188 7 Fla L Weekly Fed S 205Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White Harry BlackmunJohn P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyDavid Souter Clarence ThomasCase opinionsMajorityO Connor joined by Rehnquist Scalia Kennedy Souter ThomasConcurrenceKennedyDissentStevens joined by White BlackmunAccording to the Court mere forfeiture as opposed to waiver does not extinguish an error under Rule 52 b of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure If a legal rule was violated during the District Court proceedings and if the defendant did not waive the rule then there has been an error within the meaning of Rule 52 b despite the absence of a timely objection See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 507 List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist CourtExternal links editText of United States v Olano 507 U S 725 1993 is available from Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio nbsp This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Olano amp oldid 1175151819, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
