Page:United States Reports, Volume 542.djvu/120

Rh

It is only for certain structural errors undermining the fairness of a criminal proceeding as a whole that even preserved error requires reversal without regard to the mistake's effect on the proceeding. See Arizona v. Fulminante,, 309–310 (1991) (giving examples). Dominguez does not argue that either Rule 11 error generally or the Rule 11 error here is structural in this sense.

Otherwise, relief for error is tied in some way to prejudicial effect, and the standard phrased as "error that affects substantial rights," used in Rule 52, has previously been taken to mean error with a prejudicial effect on the outcome of a judicial proceeding. See Kotteakos v. United States,. To affect "substantial rights," see 28 U.S.C. §2111, an error must have "substantial and injurious effect or inﬂuence in determining the verdict." Kotteakos, supra, at 776. In cases where the burden of demonstrating prejudice (or materiality) is on the defendant seeking relief, we have invoked a standard with similarities to the Kotteakos formulation in requiring the showing of