Law Firm Planner - Legal News - Supreme Court rules magistrates may preside
Law Firm News
Today's Date: Bookmark This Website
Supreme Court rules magistrates may preside
Law Center | 2008/05/15 07:36
pThe US Supreme Court ruled Monday in Gonzalez v. United States that allowing a magistrate judge to oversee jury selection does not deprive a criminal defendant of the right to a jury trial and complies with the Federal Magistrates Act. The holding affirmed a judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that defendant's counsel may waive the right to have an Article III judge preside over voir dire, and that it was not error to proceed without first getting the defendant's personal consent. Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court; his opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent. /ppIn affirming the Fifth Circuit ruling, Justice Kennedy wrote: /ppNumerous choices affecting conduct of the trial, including the objections to make, the witnesses to call, and the arguments to advance, depend not only upon what is permissible under the rules of evidence and procedure but also upon tactical considerations of the moment and the larger strategic plan for the trial. These matters can be difficult to explain to a layperson; and to require in all instances that they be approved by the client could risk compromising the efficiencies and fairness that the trial process is designed to promote.

In a separate concurrence, Justice Scalia agreed with the conclusion but not with the reasoning upon which it was based. He wrote: /ppI would not adopt the tactical-vs.-fundamental approach, which is vague and derives from nothing more substantial than this Court’s say-so./ppIn his dissent, Justice Thomas advocated overruling the precedents for the decision and wrote:

Where, as here, a mistaken interpretation of a statute leaves the Court with no principled way to answer subsequent questions that arise under the statute, it seems to me that the better course is simply to acknowledge and correct the error.
/p


[PREV] [1] ..[1787][1788][1789][1790][1791][1792][1793][1794][1795].. [1972] [NEXT]
All
Law Firm News
Headline News
Law Center
Court Watch
Legal Interview
Topics
Lawyer News
Legal Focuses
Opinions
Marketing
Politics
Firm News
Maldives court delays reinst..
Inmate in landmark Supreme C..
GOP to take new congressiona..
Afghans submitted 1.17 milli..
Specialist prosecutor for Ko..
Beleaguered gunmaker Remingt..
Court: Idaho nuclear waste d..
Kushner firm seeks court cha..
Wisconsin Supreme Court prim..
Supreme Court blocks some re..
Court allows Pennsylvania to..
Greek court postpones decisi..
Prosecutor asks for prison t..
Court: Lawsuit alleging coer..
Samsung heir freed after app..


   Lawyer & Law Firm List
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
New Rochelle Oil and Gas Industry Law Firm
www.kboattorneys.com
Canton Family Lawyer
Canton Divorce Lawyer
cantoncriminalattorney.com
 
 
© Law Firm Planner. All rights reserved. - Legal News and Articles on Recent US Legal Developments.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Law Firm Planner Media as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Legal Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Law Firm Website Design by Best Lawyer Website Design- Attorney Web Design That Works