## Facts

- Billy G. Young, a petroleum company manager, participated in a scheme billing a refiner for deliveries represented as crude oil when the deliveries largely consisted of less valuable fuel oil.
- After impurities were detected, the matter was investigated federally, and Young was charged with offenses including mail fraud and making false statements tied to false certifications about the product delivered.
- At trial, Young argued he believed the delivered mixture was effectively equivalent to crude oil and that the refiner’s initial acceptance supported that belief.
- During closing argument, defense counsel attacked the prosecutor’s integrity and suggested the prosecutor did not believe the government’s case.
- The prosecutor did not object at the time.
- In rebuttal, the prosecutor expressed a personal opinion that Young was guilty and urged the jury to “do its job.”
- Defense counsel did not object to the rebuttal remarks.
- The jury convicted Young on multiple counts of mail fraud and false statements (and acquitted on one unrelated count).

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor’s improper rebuttal remarks constituted “plain error” under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) when there was no contemporaneous objection.
2. Whether, in context—including defense counsel’s improper argument—the rebuttal remarks undermined the fundamental fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings so as to warrant reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the convictions.
- The Court held the prosecutor’s rebuttal comments were improper but did not amount to plain error under Rule 52(b) given the entire record.
- The Court concluded the remarks were, in substantial part, an invited response to defense counsel’s personal attack and did not unfairly prejudice Young.
- The Court emphasized the importance of contemporaneous objections to permit prompt correction by the trial judge.

## Legal Principles

- Plain-error review under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) is narrow and is reserved for errors that would otherwise result in a miscarriage of justice and that seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
- Alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument must be evaluated in context and against the entire record, not in isolation.
- Under the invited-response doctrine, the question is not whether the prosecutor’s remarks were improper in the abstract, but whether the response, viewed in context, unfairly prejudiced the defendant; a limited reply aimed at “right[ing] the scale” after improper defense argument may not justify reversal.
- Failure to object at trial weighs heavily against reversal because it deprives the trial court of the opportunity to give curative instructions or otherwise control improper advocacy.
- Trial judges bear responsibility to control closing argument and address breaches of proper advocacy promptly by either side.

## Conclusion

Although the prosecutor improperly vouched by expressing a personal view of guilt and urging the jury to “do its job,” the Court held that, in light of the defense’s provocation, the lack of objection, the strength of the evidence, and review of the full record, the rebuttal did not constitute plain error requiring a new trial.


United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985)