Miscellaneous

Jury Selection: So Simple Even a Magistrate Can Do It!

By Anne Skove, Esq.

This morning the SCOTUS ruled that federal magistrates may preside over jury selection if defense counsel (as opposed to the actual defendant) consents.

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion: "If the parties consent, federal magistrate judges may preside over the voir dire and selection of prospective jurors in a felony criminal trial."

Here, the judge asked whether parties consented. Defense counsel did, but the defendant himself (who required an interpreter) did not. No objections were raised.

The Court held that the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 USC sec. 631, permit district courts to assign various duties to federal magistrates. That is, after all, the purpose of magistrates: they exist to help move those federal cases along.

In question here was sec. 636(b)(3), allowing assignment of "additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." The Court looked to caselaw establishing these additional duties; federal rules requiring consent of all parties vs. unwaivable rights; and statutes allowing similar scenarios.

Justice Scalia concurred, focusing more on the function of attorneys and their relationship with clients. This is not a case in which the client objected to counsel's consent, but rather where the defendant did nothing. No personal waiver is required; it's all about agency.

Justice Thomas dissented. He didn't say why! (Kidding.) He would have overruled the caselaw cited by the majority. If Congress had wanted this duty to be assignable, it would have said so more explicitly. The precendent "requires us to wade into a constitutional morass."

See Gonzales v. U.S. (06-11612). (Link is to SCOTUSWiki.) See also Court Rules that Magistrate May Preside, AP (May 12, 2008).

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on May 12, 2008 (boomark / email).