×
You have 1 more free article available this month. Subscribe today.
Federal Magistrate Judge May Conduct Voir Dire without Defendant’s Personal Consent, Supreme Court Holds
A federal magistrate judge may conduct voir dire in a criminal case upon consent of a defendant’s attorney. No personal consent by a defendant is necessary, the Supreme Court decided May 12, 2008.
Homero Gonzalez was charged with several drug trafficking offenses. Gonzalez’s attorney consented to a magistrate judge conducting voir dire instead of a district judge. Gonzalez was found guilty and appealed, arguing, among other things, that his conviction should be reversed because he did not personally consent to a magistrate judge conduction voir dire. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected Gonzalez’s consent argument.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed. “[A] magistrate judge may preside over jury examination and jury selection only if the parties, or the attorneys for the parties, consent. Consent from an attorney will suffice.” See: Gonzalez v. United States, 06-11612 (2008).
Homero Gonzalez was charged with several drug trafficking offenses. Gonzalez’s attorney consented to a magistrate judge conducting voir dire instead of a district judge. Gonzalez was found guilty and appealed, arguing, among other things, that his conviction should be reversed because he did not personally consent to a magistrate judge conduction voir dire. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected Gonzalez’s consent argument.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed. “[A] magistrate judge may preside over jury examination and jury selection only if the parties, or the attorneys for the parties, consent. Consent from an attorney will suffice.” See: Gonzalez v. United States, 06-11612 (2008).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Gonzalez v. United States
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 06-11612 (2008) |
| Level | Supreme Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |