Supreme Court Backs Lawyer’s Decision on Magistrate Jury Selection
In a decision backing the power of lawyers to make tactical decisions for their clients, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant’s lawyer in a criminal case may waive the right to jury selection before an Article III judge.
The defendant in the case, Homero Gonzalez, did not speak English and did not have an interpreter present when his lawyer allowed a magistrate to oversee jury selection, the Associated Press reports. Magistrates are appointed by federal judges and do not have life tenure.
In an 8-1 decision (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog), the court said a magistrate may preside over jury selection in criminal cases if the defendant’s lawyer approves the procedure. “Petitioner’s counsel had full authority to consent to the magistrate judge’s role,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.
Kennedy said that some basic trial choices are so important that a defendant’s consent is a necessity. But the choice in Gonzalez’s case did not rise to that level, he said.
“Giving the attorney control of trial management matters is a practical necessity,” Kennedy wrote. Lawyers are trained to make decisions about objections to make, witnesses to call and arguments to advance, Kennedy said. “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.”
Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the court’s conclusion but wrote separately to say he disagreed with the “tactical-vs.-fundamental test on which it is based.” Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
The decision is Gonzalez v. United States.
