Gomez v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Federal Courts

Federal Courts28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3)magistratesvoir direfelony trialjury selectionadditional dutiesconsent

Facts

Petitioners were tried on federal felony charges arising from cocaine distribution, conspiracy, and related offenses. The district judge delegated jury selection to a federal magistrate, and defense counsel timely objected both before voir dire and again before the district judge eight days later. The magistrate questioned the venire, introduced the charges, instructed prospective jurors on legal principles, and selected the jury; the district judge overruled the objection but stated he would review any of the magistrate's rulings de novo. Petitioners were convicted, and on appeal they argued not specific prejudice but that the magistrate lacked statutory authority to conduct voir dire in a felony case.

Issue

Does the Federal Magistrates Act's authorization for magistrates to perform "additional duties" permit a magistrate to preside over jury selection in a felony trial when the defendant has not consented? If not, may the error be treated as harmless absent a specific showing of prejudice?

Rule

Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the "additional duties" clause in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) does not authorize a magistrate to conduct voir dire and select the jury in a felony trial over the defendant's objection. In a felony case, when an officer without jurisdiction selects the jury despite objection and without meaningful district-judge review, harmless-error analysis does not apply.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal district court in Chicago, a district judge assigns Magistrate Elena Voss to conduct voir dire in a felony fraud prosecution against Darren Pike. Defense counsel objects before questioning begins, but the judge responds that the magistrate may handle any task not expressly forbidden by statute and lets voir dire proceed.

Which is the strongest argument for Darren on appeal?

Explanation. The majority rejected a literal reading of the additional duties clause. Looking to the Act’s structure, history, and purpose, it held that Congress carefully limited magistrate authority over trial functions and did not intend the residual clause to include conducting voir dire in a felony case over the defendant’s objection.