Peretz v. United States

1991-06-27

Headline: Magistrates allowed to supervise jury selection in felony trials when defendants consent, permitting judges to delegate voir dire and limiting later objections if no timely challenge is made.

Holding: The Court holds that a magistrate may supervise jury selection in a felony trial if the defendant and parties consent, and failure to object at trial generally waives later challenges and raises no Article III defect in these circumstances.

Real World Impact:

Allows judges to delegate felony jury selection to magistrates when defendants consent.
Limits appellate review when defendants fail to object at trial.
May increase magistrate use to speed federal criminal dockets.

Topics: jury selection, magistrates' role, criminal trials, federal courts, constitutional limits

Summary

Background

A defendant was charged with importing four kilograms of heroin. At a pretrial conference his lawyer told the judge he welcomed having the magistrate pick the jury. The magistrate asked counsel for both sides and received assurances that their clients consented, then conducted the voir dire. The district judge presided over the trial, which produced a conviction for the defendant. The defendant raised no objection at trial but later argued on appeal that allowing a magistrate to supervise jury selection was unlawful under this Court's earlier decision in Gomez.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the Federal Magistrates Act permits a magistrate to supervise jury selection in a felony case when the parties consent and whether that delegation raises a constitutional problem. The majority said Gomez was narrow and concerned nonconsensual delegation. With a defendant's consent, the Court found no Article III obstacle and concluded the Act's broad "additional duties" language can include voir dire when litigants agree. The opinion relied on prior decisions recognizing magistrates' useful role and on the district court's continuing control and ability to review matters if asked.

Real world impact

The ruling means district judges may assign jury questioning to magistrates if the defendant (and other parties) agree. Defendants who do not object at trial generally cannot later challenge that delegation on appeal. The Solicitor General had conceded the reference was error but the Court accepted that counsel's and the defendant's failure to object removed the problem for this case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices in dissent argued the majority misreads Gomez and the statute and that permitting magistrates to perform this critical trial function risks upsetting Article III protections. One dissent would bar magistrate jury selection even with consent; another focused on forfeiture rules and written-consent concerns.