Peretz v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsFederal Magistrates ActArticle IIIFederal Magistrates Act28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3)additional dutiesmagistratesvoir dire

Facts

Petitioner was charged with importing four kilograms of heroin. At a pretrial conference attended by petitioner and his counsel, the district judge asked whether there was any objection to having a magistrate pick the jury, and petitioner's counsel affirmatively responded that he welcomed the opportunity. Before voir dire began, the magistrate obtained assurances from defense counsel that their clients consented, then conducted voir dire and supervised jury selection. Petitioner was later convicted, never objected in the district court to the magistrate's role, and did not seek district-court review of any ruling made during jury selection.

Issue

Does 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) permit a magistrate to conduct voir dire in a felony trial when the defendant consents, and if so, does that delegation violate Article III?

Rule

Under the Federal Magistrates Act, supervision of voir dire in a felony proceeding is an "additional duty" that may be delegated to a magistrate under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) if the litigants consent. When the parties consent, delegation of felony-trial jury selection to a magistrate does not violate Article III because the process remains under the district court's control and the defendant may waive any personal right to an Article III judge at that stage.

🔒

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 a federal drug-trafficking prosecution in Denver, the district judge asked in open court whether either side objected to Magistrate Judge Elena Morris conducting jury selection. Defense counsel, with Noah Vega seated beside her, said, "No objection; that is fine with us," and the prosecutor agreed. The magistrate conducted voir dire, and Vega was later convicted after a trial presided over by the district judge.

On appeal, Vega argues that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) never allows a magistrate to supervise voir dire in a felony trial. How should the appellate court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that supervision of voir dire in a felony proceeding is an "additional duty" under § 636(b)(3) when the litigants consent. Consent removes the concerns that drove the narrower reading in the no-consent situation, and felony voir dire is comparable in importance to duties magistrates may perform with consent, such as entire civil and misdemeanor trials.