Gonzalez v. United States
Gonzales was convicted of several drug-related federal crimes by a jury in Texas. Gonzales, a Mexican citizen who does not speak English, was represented by a lawyer at trial. But before Gonzales had the assistance of an interpreter, his lawyer agreed to allow a United States magistrate judge oversee the jury selection process (voir dire), without Gonzales’ consent or knowledge. Gonzales appealed the conviction, claiming that the delegation of voir dire to the magistrate without his express consent was erroneous and required a new trial.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Gonzales’ conviction. The Supreme Court had stated that while voir dire may not be delegated to a magistrate judge over the express objection of the defendant, failure to object to the delegation constitutes a waiver as to any future challenges on those grounds. The Fifth Circuit applied the “plain error standard,” stating that Gonzales “must demonstrate clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights.” The Court held that while there are certain rights that are so fundamental that they may only be waived personally by the defendant, Gonzales had not provided any support for his contention that the “right to have an Article III judge conduct voir dire” was such a right, especially since the voir dire may still be subject to judicial review.
Question Presented:
Is a federal criminal defendant’s counsel’s oral consent to have a United States magistrate judge preside over jury selection binding on the defendant when the record does not reflect the defendant’s own knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional right to have an Article III judge preside over jury selection?
