October Term 2007 · Docket 06-11612
Can a magistrate judge conduct jury selection without the defendant's direct consent?
The dispute centers on whether a magistrate judge may conduct jury selection when the defendant was absent and did not personally consent.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Newton argued the side that brought the case was absent and lacked an interpreter during the consent process.
Ms. Blatt argued the decision to use a magistrate is a strategic call for counsel.
Justice Roberts asked if the right is derivative of other fair trial rights.
Justice Scalia questioned which article of the Constitution governs the magistrate's role.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-51
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the constitutional limits on magistrate judges. It tests whether a magistrate can perform core judicial functions like jury selection. The core issue is the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-51
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 8, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned because he did not personally consent to the magistrate's role.
The government wants the conviction upheld because the attorney's consent was sufficient.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-51
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the magistrate lacked authority because the defendant was absent and did not consent.
The government argues the attorney's strategic decision to consent was legally sufficient.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-51
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if waiving a jury trial is easily understood by ordinary people.
Justice Ginsburg noted the lack of objections to the magistrate's proceedings by the defendant's side.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-51
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of magistrate judge authority. It clarifies the defendant's right to participate in jury selection. It protects the integrity of the federal judicial system.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-51
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 39-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 39-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 21-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 21-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-51
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-51
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.