Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Gonzales v. United States

Gonzales v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 (2008)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2008-12-08
Topic
general

holding that defense counsel may decide whether to consent to voir dire proceedings before a federal magistrate | noting that when the magistrate judge acts under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), “the district judge ... is waiting in the wings, fully able to correct errors” | stating that when a magistrate conducts voir dire, "the district judge — insulated by life tenure and irreducible salary — is waiting in the wings, fully able to correct errors” | permitting magistrate judge to conduct jury selection without an explicit personal statement of consent | "[S]ome basic trial choices are so important that an attorney must seek the client's consent in order to waive the right." | ”[S]ome basic trial choices are so important that an attorney must seek the client’s consent in order to waive the right.” | "What suffices for waiver depends on the nature of the right at issue." (internal quotation marks omitted). | "[S]ome basic trial choices are so important that an attorney must seek the client's consent in order to waive the right." | “[S]ome basic trial choices are so important that an attorney must seek the client’s consent in order to waive the right.” | “[A] scheduling matter ... is a tactical decision that is well suited for the attorney’s own decision.” | "[Sjome basic trial choices are so important that an attorney must seek the client's consent in order to waive the right.” | "some basic trial choices are so important that an attorney must seek the client's consent in order to waive the right" | suppression of evidence for alleged constitutional violations is ‘‘the type of trial manage- ment [decision] that can be determined and thus . . . waived by the lawyer’’ | ‘‘[S]ome basic trial choices are so important that an attorney must seek the client’s consent in order to waive the right." | Defense counsel may waive a defendant’s right to have an Article III judge preside over voir dire. | right to plead not guilty is a fundamental right that a criminal defendant must waive personally and that an attorney alone cannot waive | "[T]he presiding judge has significant discretion over the structure of voir dire. The judge may ask questions of the jury pool or ... allow the attorneys for the parties to do so.” | decision of whether to waive Article III judge at voir dire belongs to counsel | “As to many decisions pertaining to the conduct of the trial, the defendant is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.” | “As to many deci sions pertaining to the conduct of the trial, the defendant is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

Citator

Cited by
34 opinions

GEORGE J. GONZALES
v.
UNITED STATES

No. 08-7119

Supreme Court of United States.

December 8, 2008.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.