Opinion ID: 656624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: refusal to consent to waiver

Text: 40 On cross appeal defendant argues that the Court impermissibly allowed the Government to refuse to consent to the defendant's waiver of jury trial. He contends that the court was obligated to require an explanation from the Government for its refusal so to consent and to assure that the explanation was not tinged by racial discrimination. 41 Although defendant had waived his right to a jury trial, the Government refused to consent to the waiver, and the jury trial commenced. Neither before nor during trial did Reyes argue that the court was obligated to require an explanation for the Government's refusal to consent to a bench trial. 20 Thus, he did not raise this particular issue before the district court. 42 Ordinarily, an issue raised for the first time on appeal is not considered by this court. United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir.1990); Jovanovich v. United States, 813 F.2d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir.1987); Bolker v. C.I.R., 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985). However: 43 We have permitted only narrow and discretionary exceptions to the general rule against considering issues for the first time on appeal. They are (1) when review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, (2) when a change in law raises a new issue while an appeal is pending, and (3) when the issue is purely one of law. 44 Jovanovich, 813 F.2d at 1037. Defendant raises an issue which challenges the integrity of the judicial process. We have previously stated that because a claim that a district court violated a party's due process rights questions the integrity of the federal judicial system, we review [the defendant's] claim despite his failure to raise it below. Prantil v. State of California, 843 F.2d 314, 319 n. 5 (9th Cir.1988). Since this appeal raises primarily a question of law, failure to preserve the legal issue below should not foreclose consideration. 45 Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that: 46 [c]ases required to be tried by jury shall be so tried unless the defendant waives a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government. 47 Fed.R.Crim.P. 23(a) (emphasis added). Though the Government does not have the constitutional right to insist on a jury trial, neither does a defendant have a Sixth Amendment right to waiver. Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 36-37, 85 S.Ct. 783, 790-91, 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965). The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Rule 23 and specifically considered whether the Government should be forced to provide reasons in exercising its power under it. 48 Because of [our] confidence in the integrity of the federal prosecutor, Rule 23(a) does not require that the Government articulate its reasons for demanding a jury trial at the time it refuses to consent to a defendant's proffered waiver. Nor should we assume that federal prosecutors would demand a trial for an ignoble purpose. We need not determine in this case whether there might be circumstances where a defendant's reasons for wanting to be tried by a judge alone are so compelling that the Government's insistence on trial by jury would result in the denial to a defendant of an impartial trial. 49 Singer, 380 U.S. at 37, 85 S.Ct. at 791. 50 Defendant's assertion that the requisite circumstances were present in his case has no merit. The passion, prejudice ... and public feeling defendant feared would jeopardize his right to an impartial trial, Singer at 38, 85 S.Ct. at 791, were specifically addressed and guarded against by the trial judge during voir dire. 21