Greer v. United States
The Facts
Greer was convicted of possessing a firearm while being a felon. He did not object at trial to jury instructions that omitted the scienter requirement announced in Rehaif v. United States (2019), which requires proof the defendant knew he was a felon. He raised the Rehaif error for the first time on appeal.
The Issue
What showing a defendant must make to satisfy plain-error review when challenging omitted Rehaif elements in jury instructions
The Rules
Rehaif v. United States (2019) - scienter in felon-in-possession prosecutions
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) plain-error review
Prejudice prong of plain-error analysis
The Application
Because Greer had extensive prior felony convictions, the Court found it implausible that he was genuinely unaware of his status as a prohibited person, the knowledge element that Rehaif required but was omitted from his jury instructions. Under plain error review, Greer could not therefore establish a reasonable probability that this instructional omission affected the outcome of his trial. With his felony record independently establishing his prohibited status, the omitted scienter element could not have been outcome-determinative, and Greer failed to meet the plain error standard for reversal.
The Conclusion
**Court held defendant must show a reasonable probability the error affected the outcome of the whole trial.** Most defendants will lose on plain-error Rehaif challenges. 6-3 majority.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court held that plain-error review of unpreserved jury instruction claims requires defendants to show the instructional error affected the outcome of the entire trial, not just a single count, when reviewing omitted elements from a lesser-included offense instruction.
Facts
Greer was convicted of possessing a firearm while being a felon. He did not object at trial to jury instructions that omitted the scienter requirement announced in Rehaif v. United States (2019), which requires proof the defendant knew he was a felon. He raised the Rehaif error for the first time on appeal.
Issue
Whether a defendant who did not object at trial to a Rehaif instructional error can establish plain error warranting reversal when he had extensive prior felony convictions.
Rule
To show plain error affecting substantial rights after a Rehaif violation, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that he was actually unaware of his status as a prohibited person at the time of the offense. A defendant with prior felony convictions cannot make this showing; it is implausible that someone with such a record was unaware that prior convictions placed him in a prohibited category.
Analysis
Because Greer had extensive prior felony convictions, the Court found it implausible that he was genuinely unaware of his status as a prohibited person. The knowledge element that Rehaif required but was omitted from his jury instructions. Under plain error review, Greer could not therefore establish a reasonable probability that this instructional omission affected the outcome of his trial. With his felony record independently establishing his prohibited status, the omitted scienter element could not have been outcome-determinative, and Greer failed to meet the plain error standard for reversal.
Conclusion
**Court held defendant must show a reasonable probability the error affected the outcome of the whole trial.** Most defendants will lose on plain-error Rehaif challenges. 6-3 majority.
Notes
OT2020. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support