Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been pre- pared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

Syllabus

v. UNITED STATES

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

No. 90-615. Argued April 23, 1991 -- Decided June 27, 1991

Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, held that the selection of a jury in a felony trial without a defendant's consent is not one of the "additional duties" that magistrates may be assigned under the Federal Magistrates Act. That decision rested on the lack of both an express statutory pro- vision for de novo review and an explicit congressional intent to permit magistrates to conduct voir dire absent the parties' consent. And it was compelled by concerns that a defendant might have a constitutional right to demand that an Article III judge preside at every critical stage of a felony trial and that the procedure deprived an individual of an impor- tant privilege, if not a right. In this case, petitioner Peretz consented to the assignment of a Magistrate to conduct the voir dire and supervise the jury selection for his felony trial, never asked the District Court to re- view the Magistrate's rulings, and raised no objection regarding jury se- lection at trial. However, on appeal from his conviction, he contended that it was error to assign the jury selection to the Magistrate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on the ground that Gomez re- quires reversal only in cases in which the magistrate has acted without the defendant's consent.

1. The Act's "additional duties" clause permits a magistrate to super- vise jury selection in a felony trial provided that the parties consent. The fact that there is only ambiguous evidence of Congress' intent to in- clude jury selection among magistrates' additional duties is far less im- portant here than it was in Gomez, for Peretz' consent eliminates the concerns about a constitutional issue and the deprivation of an important right. Absent these concerns, the Act's structure and purpose evince a congressional belief that magistrates are well qualified to handle matters of similar importance to jury selection. This reading of the additional duties clause strikes the balance Congress intended between a criminal defendant's interests and the polices undergirding the Act. It allows courts, with the litigants' consent, to continue innovative experiments in the use of magistrates to improve the efficient administration of the courts' dockets, thus relieving the courts of certain subordinate duties that often distract them from more important matters. At the same time, the consent requirement protects a criminal defendant's interest in requesting the presence of a trial judge at all critical stages of his felony trial. Pp. 8-12.

2. There is no constitutional infirmity in the delegation of felony trial jury selection to a magistrate when the litigants consent. A defendant has no constitutional right to have an Article III judge preside at jury selection if he has raised no objection to the judge's absence. Cf. Com- modity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 848. Cf. also, e. g., United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 528. In addition, none of Article III's structural protections are implicated by this pro cedure. The entire process takes place under the total control and ju risdiction of the district court, which decides, subject to veto by the par- ties, whether to invoke a magistrate's assistance and whether to actually empanel the jury selected. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667. That the Act does not provide for a de novo review of magistrates' decisions during jury selection does not alter this result, for, if a defend- ant requests review, nothing in the statute precludes a court from pro- viding the review required by the Constitution. See id., at 681, n. 7. Pp. 12-16.

904 F. 2d 34, affirmed.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which White and Blackmun, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion.