Document: 490 U.S. 858 109 S.Ct. 2237 104 L.Ed.2d 923 Jose GOMEZ, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. Diego CHAVEZ-TESINA, Petitioner v. UNITED Nos. 88-5014, 88-5158. Argued April 24, 1989 Decided June 12, 1989. Syllabus A Magistrate assigned by the District Judge conducted voir dire examination and jury selection for petitioners' trial on multiple felony counts. The judge overruled objections to assignment of Magistrate. offered review any Magistrate's rulings de novo, but petitioners registered no specific challenge juror. After were convicted sentenced, they contended appeal that had power conduct selection, made claim prejudice. Court Appeals affirmed their convictions, noting Federal Magistrates Act permits district courts assign magistrates certain described powers duties, as well "such additional duties are not inconsistent with Constitution laws United States." court held Congress intended this clause be construed broadly enough include magistrates, adding such a designation does violate Article III or Due Process Clause. Held: 1. Presiding at in without defendant's consent is one "additional duties" magistrates. Pp. 863-876. (a) Read literally reference its statutory context, encompasses explicitly prohibited statute Constitution. It Court's settled policy, however, avoid an interpretation federal engenders constitutional issues if reasonable alternative poses question. Thus it appropriate examine Act's overall structure purpose determine whether magistrate bear some relation other that, because specifically enumerated Act, define attributes magistrate's office. See, e.g., Mathews Weber, 423 261, 96 549, 46 483. 863-865. (b) legislative history demonstrate congressional intent limit range criminal cases to: performing pretrial post-trial functions, subject two levels judicial depending scope significance decision; conducting bench trials misdemeanor charges, only upon special by, of, court, parties. 865-871. (c) absence demonstrates did intend embrace function. Voir case critical stage trial. However, carefully defined grant authority minor must explicit withholding preside trials. Even assuming consider part trial, unlikely allow duty" procedural guidance applicable matters. In event, doubtful could function meaningfully, since transcript can recapture atmosphere dire. 871-876. 2. There merit Government's argument error was harmless allege prejudice result Harmless-error analysis apply which, despite objection meaningful judge, officer exceeds his jurisdiction selecting jury. P. 876. 848 F.2d 1324 (CA2 1988), reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Joel B. Rudin, New York City, petitioners. Michael K. Kellogg, Torrance, Cal., respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 Since enactment 1968, has permitted States."1 principal question presented presiding among those duties." 2 * Petitioners Gomez Chavez-Tesina 11 persons named defendants 21-count indictment alleging commission felonies, including conspiracy racketeering, involving distribution cocaine.2 Having elected stand three codefendants appeared before whom delegated task jury.3 Defense counsel timely assignment. Following telephone conversation Judge, noted commenced App. 13-16. As practice Eastern York, Magistrate, rather than attorneys, posed q estions venirepersons.4 also introduced prospective jurors offenses charged; instructed them numerous points law, presumption innocence different burdens persuasion civil trials; admonished chosen discuss anyone. See generally Tr. Jury Selection. When defense eight days later, renewed role selection. said he would novo. 19. Defendants juror, proceeded; 10 returned guilty verdicts against all five defendants. received concurrent 10-year sentences, followed parole term; ordered serve 20 years count, lesser sentences run concurrently, lifetime parole. 3 On appeal, They contended, do Court, divided panel rejected argument. States Garcia, 1988). Id., 1329. Such designation, majority added, Clause 1330-1333. dissenting expressed doubts concerning both majority's analysis, concluded should exercise supervisory forbid delegation "except, possibly, when parties consent, then pursuant rules controlling court's review."5 4 Second Circuit's decision conflicts holding Fifth Circuit Ford, 824 1430, 1438 (1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 484 1034, 108 741, 98 776 (1988). Government urged construe judges delegate even consent. That construction provoke "grave questions," en banc stated. F.2d, 1430; see id., 1435. stressing importance specificity which magistrates' regarding proceedings, concluded: 5 "Additional duty residuum, granting otherwise forbidden after we carve away congery never envisioned delegated. We persuaded over activities integral intimately tied trial."6 6 granted certiorari resolve important conflict. 488 1003, 782, 102 773 (1989).7 II 7 provides "magistrate may 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). context appear, these words might encompass itself specifies proscriptions: "may hold military office employment under States," 631(c), nor "engage law [or] business, occupation, expeditious, proper, impartial performance officers," 632(a). legal constraint many assignments expressly barred—whether supervising repair courthouse electrical system trials—must found, according literal reading, below dissenters Ford embraced construction,8 abiding concerns constitutionality delegating magistrates.9 8 our policy Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n Schor, 478 833, 841, 106 3245, 3251-3252, 92 675 (1986); Rumely, 345 41, 45, 73 543, 545, 97 L.Ed. 770 (1953); Crowell Benson, 285 22, 62, 52 285, 296, (1932). cases, readily deduced from scheme. Cf. Massachusetts Morash, 107, 115, 1668, 1673, (1989) (" '[I]n expounding statute, [are] . guided single sentence member sentence, look provisions whole object policy' ") (quoting Pilot Life Insurance Co. Dedeaux, 481 51, 107 1549, 1555, 95 39 (1987); Richards States, 369 1, 11, 82 585, 592, 492 (1962)). creates assigns outline Any performed general authorization reasonably specified duties. Raddatz, 447 667, 674-676, 100 2406, 2411-2412, 65 424 (1980); 483 (1976); Wingo Wedding, 418 461, 94 2842, 41 879 (1974), interpreted light purpose. 9 Mathews, considered preliminary review, argument, preparation recommended decisions Social Security benefits perform. opposed referrals, arguing " 'supernotary,' judge's "irksome, ministerial tasks,"10 while claimant likened 'para-judge' "a wide substantive advisory functions." U.S., 268, 553. Declining choose either extreme read language literally, examined determined limited, ongoing supervision final decision, fell "range 270, S.Ct., 554. accordance reasoning pertains seating case. Before di putes commissioners, who collected fees services often lawyers. Limitations resulted downgrading dismissal have tried judges. H.R.Rep. No. 1629, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 14 (1968), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4252. new magistrate, contrast, filled most instances attorneys. Stat. 1108, 631(b) (1964 ed., Supp. IV). Paid salary, appointed definite terms removed cause. 1109, §§ 631(e), (h). With enhanced status came greater responsibility. conferred commissioners enjoyed, 636(a), establish 12 States. authorized rule include, restricted to— 13 "(1) service master action, title Rules Civil Procedure courts; "(2) assistance discovery proceedings actions; 15 "(3) applications relief individuals offenses, submission report recommendations facilitate having there hearing." 636(b). 16 Commissioners "petty offenses."11 empowered try "minor offenses,"12 defendant, writing, waived her rights perhaps 1116, 18 3401(b) defendant 3402, contemplated retain "the greatest possible scrutiny control jurisdiction," 21, 4264.13 Exempted number offenses—such bribery public corruption, deprivation color tampering, 3401(f) IV)—that required delicate judgment "as matter sound ought courts." 4265. 17 1976, amended "to clarify further Magistrate,"14 94-1609, (1976), Con 6162.15 Upon parties, designated 90 2729, 636(b)(2) (1976 ed.). "hear matter,"16 reconsideration showing order clearly erroneous contrary law." 636(b)(1)(A). Excepted categories "dispositive" motions; regard evidentiary hearings recommend dispositions. 636(b)(1)(B). If party objected recommendation, "make novo determination" matter. 636(b)(1)(C). 1968 listed functions duties; 1976 amendments, first stated separate subsection Committee Report explained: "Under subsection, remain free experiment necessarily included broad category 'pretrial matters.' This permit, example, default judgments, exoneration forfeiture bonds accept returns where unavailable. enable more administrative appointment attorneys plans achieve prompt disposition court. 19 "If willing aid business courts, will increased time available careful unhurried vital traditional adjudicatory 6172. By 1979, abilities decreased; reported now plays system."17 96-287, (1979). Accordingly, Pub.L. 96-82, 93 643-647, enlarged trials, codifying experiments clause. 2, 17. 1979 been at, enter in, 643-644, 636(c). For jury, bench, charge.18 646, 3401(b). before, exercised 643, 636(c)(1); 645, 3401(a), remains review.19 21 limitation expanded states "neither shall attempt persuade induce magistrate." 636(c)(2). petition judge.20 "Defendants charged misdemeanors refuse thus effect same removal," S.Rep. 96-74, (1979), 1475, depends specific, written consent.21 IV 22 Through gradual enlargement jurisdiction, authorizes disputes misdemeanors, assignment, review. details matters, specifying decision. retains unspecified duties," conditions impose. reading permit But matters implicit trial.22 history, repeated statements handle subsidiary concentrate trying cases,23 assurances circumscribed interests constraints,24 confirms inference. Similar considerat ons lead us conclude contemplate inclusion duties.25 23 though true commence purposes Double Jeopardy until empaneled sworn, Serfass 420 377, 388, 1055, 1062, 43 265 (1975), attach point, see, Brewer Williams, 430 387, 398, 1232, 1239, 51 (1977) (assistance counsel). affirming proceeding, during right present, wrote: '[W]here felony, commences least work empanelling begins.' Lewis 146 370, 374, 136, 137, 36 1011 (1892) Hopt Utah, 110 574, 578, 202, 204, 262 (1884)). Swain Alabama, 380 219, 85 824, 835, 759 (1965) (voir necessary jury"); Ricketts Adamson, 3, 2680, 2682, Powell, 469 57, 66, 105 471, 477, 83 461 (1984). primary means enforce ethnic, racial, political prejudice, Rosales-Lopez 451 182, 188, 101 1634, 68 (1981); Ham South Carolina, 409 524, 848, 35 (1973); Dennis 339 162, 70 519, 734 (1950), predisposition about culpability, Irvin Dowd, 366 717, 81 1639, 751 (1961). Indications likewise considers gleaned, inter alia, passage 1975 Speedy Trial 3161 et seq. (1982 ed. V),26 placement pertaining petit juries chapter entitled "T ial." Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 23, 24; cf. Rule 43(a) (requiring presence "at every impaneling jury"). 24 Significantly, clarified identify covered 636(b)(1)(B) "nondispositive" governed To limited extent fits into category, believe akin precisely defined, subparagraph (B) meticulously sets forth procedure.27 incongruous assume implicitly yet failed mention statute. equally assume, alternative, require review—not less stringent clearly-erroneous standard matters28—of Yet assumptions component conclusion 25 harbor serious meaningfully. Far empanelment process, represents jurors' introduction factual detect prejudices, examiner—often, system, court—must elicit candid answers intimate lives. scrutinize spoken gestures attitudes participants ensure jury's impartiality. Wainwright Witt, 412, 428, n. 9, 844, 854, 841 (1985) Reynolds 145, 156-157, 244 (1879)). preserved review; dire, persist throughout trial.29 Waller Georgia, 467 39, 49, 2210, 2217, 31 (1984) ("While frequently intangible, difficult prove, chance, Framers plainly thought nonetheless real"). indeed, history,30 persuades V 26 concedes, must, errors occurring grounds reversal conviction. Brief 44, (citing Batson Kentucky, 476 79, 85, 1712, 1716, 69 Witherspoon Illinois, 391 510, 522, 88 1770, 1776, (1968)). argues examination. 42-45. find Among basic fair 'can treated harmless' "right adjudicator, jury." Gray Mississippi, 648, 668, 2045, 2057, 622 Chapman California, 386 18, 87 827, 705 (1967)). Equally stages person preside. harmless-error 27 Reversed. 90-578, amended, Both distribute, actual cocaine, violation 846 V). addition, petitioner violating Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations 1962(c), Travel 1952 1324, 1327 Cited local states: "Full-time discharge set Sec 636." Fed. Local Ct. (EDNY 1988); 1327. 1338 (Oakes, dissenting). Crim. Proc. 24(a). J.). 1440 (CA5 1987) banc) (Jolly, concurring result) ("[I]t wise capacity, enact curtailing, precluding use situations"), 1438. Nonetheless, fundamentally fair," participation 1439; accord, ibid. result). dissent, four maintained within express withstood scrutiny. 1440-1448 (Rubin, Eighth Ninth opinions decide issue much below. Compare Trice, 864 1421 (CA8 Peacock, 761 1313 (CA9), 474 847, 139, 114 (1985); Bezold, 760 999 (CA9 1985), 1063, 811, 786 (1986). Rodriguez-Suarez, 856 135 (CA11 1988) (because assertion declines reach merits claim), 1045, 875, 998 (1989). Courts challenges grounds. Rivera-Sola, 713 866 (CA1 1983) (defendant object, plain error); DeFiore, 720 757 (failure object), denied sub nom. Coppola 466 906, 1684, 80 158 1329 re Establishment Inspection Gilbert Bennett Manufacturing Co., 589 1335, 1340-1341 (CA7) (in sustaining inspection warrant issued 'only limitations section 636(b)(3) consistent excluded 636(b)(1)' "), Chromalloy American Corp., Malleable Div. Marshall, 444 884, 174, 62 113 (1979)); 1441 Hearings S. 3475 al. Subcommittee Improvements Judicial Machinery Senate Judiciary Committee, 89th 1st (1966-1967) (statement Assista t Attorney General Vinson) (magistrates' unconstitutional waiver rights); 4252 (disagreeing Vinson); Cong.Rec. 27338-27343 (1968). 1437; pp. 32-33 (1979) (dissenting views Rep. Sensenbrenner). argued: "In gave operation system. deemed appropriate. Rather, assist, lighten workload relatively functions. phrase authorizing 'duties States' narrowly reflect imposed magistrates." O.T. 1975, 74-850, 8. "Petty offenses" "[a]ny misdemeanor, penalty exceed imprisonment period six months fine $500, both," 1(3) ed.), repealed 98-473, 218(a)(1), 2027. '[M]inor offenses' punishable year, $1,000, "The may, instance, veto particular reports pending uniform procedures exercising offense supervise jurisdiction." 4264. part, overturn limiting (1974) (magistrates habeas corpus actions). 6164-6165; 94-625, 3-4 (1976). Our (1976) (Act appeals), meanwhile, garnered approval. 6, 6165-6166. relevant reads follows: "An "To improve machinery defining purposes. "Be enacted House Representatives America assembled, 636(b) 28, Code, "(b)(1) Notwithstanding provision contrary— "(A) designate hear except motion injunctive relief, pleadings, summary judgment, dismiss quash information suppress evidence case, maintenance class failure state granted, involuntarily action. reconsider (A) shown law. "(B) hearings, submit proposed findings fact disposition, excepted (A), posttrial prisoner petitions challenging confinement. "(C) file copy forthwith mailed "Within ten being served copy, provided make determination portions made. accept, reject, modify, magistrate. receive recommit instructions. courts. 53(b) 636. table following handled magistrates: arrest warrants, search bail examinations, removal postindictment arraignments, conferences, motions. 7, 6167; 6169. Accord, 1469, 1471, 1474. 31-33 Holtzman "A maximum term year. An unlimited imposed." 3559(a) Losing litigants directly appeals seek discretionary 636(c)(3)-(6). Convicted take 3402. Whereas amendments relaxed requirement, providing: own or, good cause shown, attorney Government. note novelty, importance, complexity pertinent factors, filed regulations promulgated General." 3401(f). Department "attorney government consult Assistant determining judge." CFR 52.02(b)(2) "Any elect, committed. explain sentencing proceed unless explanation, files waives court." ("Because used bar, desire, felt competent"). concedes point. Oral Arg. 30-31, 37; 14. 16, supra; 6167 (magistrate "assist variety thereby facilitating ultimate case"); 92-1065, (1972), 1972, 3350 "render valuable freeing cases"); 4255 (purpose cull ever-growing desirably lower tier officers"). 27342 (1968) (remarks Poff) ("The intricate safeguards, warnings, explanations, waivers elections individual case—all show preserve principal—rather elective alternative—mode proceeding 27338-27343; 21-22, 4264-4265. Because need second cases; i.e., constitutional. 269, 5, 554, 5; Wingo, 467, 4, 2847, 4. Howell, 719 1258, 1262 (for purposes, ), 1228, 2683, 878 Like motions evidence, writs corpus, dispositive entailing requires adjudicator observe witnesses, credibility determinations, weigh contradictory evidence. (1985). Clearly correctness motions, decided solely documents. concluded, 27, supra, like 636(b)(1)(B), agree "[s]ubparagraph dire," 1428, deem meritless contention advanced litigation determine," mistakes 7-11, 7; 37. 29 Note, Harv.L.Rev. 533, 538-539 differs palpably review—which easily making decision—of "closed record[s]" Congress. 270-271, 554-555. 680, 2414, (1980), troubled determinations suppression hearing, rehear witnesses. Although similarly further, practical interrogation place defensive, engendering prejudices irrelevant facts adduced 1337 actions meaningfully examining re-examining jurors, consumed negate initially saved delegation. 1437. 30 Reports, charts listing none mentions 4-5; 1471; 5. history's lone appears occur letter Chief Oregon, referred favorably. suggests selected Furthermore, displays little concern validity assignments: "How this? just it. It's black white give something Sure get shot down once appellate So what?" Hearing 1283 94th 39-40 (1975).

Category: 0