holding “consent is of paramount importance” in determining the duties the district court could delegate to a magistrate judge
How later courts described this case
- holding “consent is of paramount importance” in determining the duties the district court could delegate to a magistrate judge
- remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on whether the defendant personally consented to a magistrate judge con- ducting voir dire in a felony criminal proceeding
- “In order for a magistrate judge to conduct jury voir dire in a felony criminal proceeding, a defendant must give consent, or in other words, a defendant must waive the right to have an Article III judge conduct voir dire.”
- requiring personal and explicit consent from the defendant
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HATCHETT, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because I would not remand the case for an evidentiary hearing, but reverse holding that the magistrate judge must obtain the defendant’s consent, on the record, before conducting voir due.