Opinion ID: 422230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Selection and Instruction of the Jury by the Magistrate

Text: 39 Pursuant to judicial authorization, a United States Magistrate presided over the selection of the jury at Rivera's trial. The magistrate then gave the jury a number of preliminary instructions, informing them that counsel's opening statements are not evidence; the government bears the burden of proof; the government must prove Rivera's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant is presumed innocent and need not present any evidence or testify; the jury is the sole fact determiner and must make all credibility determinations; and that the jury must follow the court's instructions. At this point a United States District Judge then took over and presided over the remainder of the five-day trial. The judge immediately repeated, in similar terms, many of these preliminary instructions. During the course of the trial, the judge again instructed the jury on all matters which had been covered by the magistrate's instructions. There was only one exception: the judge did not explicitly repeat the magistrate's warning that the jury must follow the court's instructions. 40 Rivera never objected to this use of the magistrate. In fact, at the conclusion of the magistrate's preliminary instructions, one of Rivera's attorneys thanked the magistrate for sharing this part of the case. Rivera now alleges that the magistrate's actions were unauthorized and warrant reversal of both of his convictions. Although Rivera waived his right to object, this use of the magistrate, which appears to be a regular practice in the District Court of Puerto Rico, requires comment. 41 The powers of a United States Magistrate are set out in 28 U.S.C. § 636. Three specific powers and duties are enumerated: 42 (1) a magistrate may serve as a special master in appropriate civil actions, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2); 43 (2) a magistrate may hear and determine a large category of pretrial and discovery proceedings in both civil and criminal actions, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); and 44 (3) a magistrate may conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact and recommended dispositions to the court, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 45 Magistrates are not limited solely to those duties specifically authorized in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (2). Section 636(b)(3) provides that [a] magistrate may be assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. This additional duties provision is to be broadly construed as authorizing magistrates to perform a wide range of quasi-judicial tasks, as the legislative history of the 1976 amendments to § 636 indicates 46 [§ 636(B)(3) ] enables the district courts to continue innovative experimentations in the use of this judicial officer. At the same time, placing this authorization in an entirely separate subsection emphasizes that it is not restricted in any way by any other specific grant of authority to magistrates. 47 Under this subsection, the district courts would remain free to experiment in the assignment of other duties to magistrates which may not necessarily be included in the broad category of pretrial matters.... 48 If the district judges are willing to experiment with the assignment to magistrates of other functions in aid of the business of the courts, there will be increased time available to judges for the careful and unhurried performance of their vital and traditional adjudicatory duties, and a consequent benefit to both efficiency and the quality of justice in the Federal courts. 49 H.R.Rep. No. 1609, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 12, reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 6162, 6172. 50 Numerous courts have upheld the delegation to magistrates of powers not explicitly mentioned in 28 U.S.C. § 636. In Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), the Supreme Court upheld a district court rule which required initial reference to a magistrate of all actions to review administrative determinations regarding the entitlement to Social Security benefits. The court relied heavily upon the legislative history, stating: 51 The Magistrate[s] Act specifies these three areas because they came up in our hearings and we thought they were areas in which the district courts might be able to benefit from the magistrate's services. We did not limit the courts to the areas mentioned. Nor did we require that they use magistrates for additional functions at all. 52 We hope and think that innovative, imaginative judges who want to clean up their caseload backlog will utilize the U.S. magistrates in these areas and perhaps even come up with new areas to increase the efficiency of their courts. Hearings on the Federal Magistrates Act before Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 81 (1968). 53 Section 636(b) was included to permit ... the U.S. district courts to assign magistrates, as officers of the courts, a variety of functions ... presently performable only by the judges themselves. [S.Rep. No. 371, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 8, 12 (1967).] In enacting this section and in expanding the criminal jurisdiction conferred upon magistrates, Congress hoped by increasing the scope of the responsibilities that can be discharged by that office, ... to establish a system capable of increasing the overall efficiency of the Federal judiciary.... Id. at 11. 54 Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. at 267-68, 96 S.Ct. at 552-53 (citation omitted); see also United States v. Saunders, 641 F.2d 659, 663 (9th Cir.1980) (Supreme Court has allowed magistrates to perform even inherently judicial tasks when under supervision of an Article III judge), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 3055, 69 L.Ed.2d 422 (1981); In re Establishment Inspection of Gilbert & Bennett Manufacturing Co., 589 F.2d 1335, 1340-41 (7th Cir.) (footnote omitted) (The only limitations on section 636(b)(3) are that the duties be consistent with the Constitution and federal laws and that they not be specifically excluded by section 636(b)(1).), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 884, 100 S.Ct. 174, 62 L.Ed.2d 113 (1979); United States v. Boswell, 565 F.2d 1338, 1341-42 (5th Cir.) (because of judge's illness, magistrate presided during four hours of closing argument; reversal of conviction not warranted), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 819, 99 S.Ct. 81, 58 L.Ed.2d 110 (1978). 55 Presiding at the selection of a jury is a recognized additional duty of a magistrate. The Legal Manual for United States Magistrates lists as an additional duty the [c]onduct of voir dire and selection of juries for district judges. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Legal Manual for United States Magistrates, § 3.10(3). Further, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has a local court rule which provides: The magistrates are also authorized to: ... [c]onduct voir dire and select petit juries in civil and criminal cases for the Court. D.P.R.R. 13.6N. This use of magistrates has also met with judicial approval. See Haith v. United States, 231 F.Supp. 495, 497-99 (E.D.Pa.1964) (neither Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(a) nor due process require presence of trial judge during jury selection; only lawyers present), aff'd per curiam, 342 F.2d 159 (3d Cir.1965). 56 There is no explicit congressional authorization for the use of a magistrate to give preliminary instructions to the jury. Nor do the local court rules for the District of Puerto Rico list this as a specific magistrate duty. 57 Because Rivera did not object to the role of the magistrate, we review only for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Rivera has demonstrated no prejudice from the procedure followed, see United States v. Boswell, 565 F.2d at 1341-42, and we find no error. 58 We end with a general observation. We think that a magistrate can effectively conduct the voir dire and preside at the selection of juries in civil and criminal cases, thus saving valuable time for our busy district court judges. The trial of criminal cases is, however, entrusted to district judges. Preliminary as well as final jury instructions play an important part in the trial of any case. The jury should not be given the impression that the instructions given it are merely a routine matter of form.