Ross

DISCUSSION

I.

Ross argues that his guilty plea is invalid because the plea colloquy did not comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Proce- dure 11. The district court showed great patience during the lengthy plea colloquy, which lasted more than forty minutes and spans thirty-three pages of the record. However, the court overlooked its regular practice of advising the defendant that the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. See Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges 78 (5th ed.) (2007) (“Ask the defendant: Do you understand . . . that at trial you would be presumed to be innocent and the govern- ment would have to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt[?]”).

[1] This was error. Rule 11 provides, in part, that Ross must understand his “right to a jury trial” and “the nature of each charge” before his guilty plea may be accepted. See Rule 11(b)(1)(C), (G). Because the reasonable doubt standard of proof is a due process requirement that permeates all aspects of a criminal trial, see In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), we read Rule 11 as requiring an advisement of the reasonable UNITED STATES v. ROSS 445 doubt standard of proof.1…