## Facts

- Homero Gonzalez was prosecuted in federal court for multiple felony drug offenses.
- Before trial, defense counsel expressly consented to a federal magistrate judge conducting voir dire and jury selection.
- Gonzalez did not personally provide on-the-record consent, and he raised no objection during voir dire.
- After jury selection by the magistrate judge, an Article III district judge presided over the trial.
- Gonzalez was convicted on all counts.
- On appeal, Gonzalez argued for the first time that allowing a magistrate judge to conduct jury selection without his personal consent was error.
- The court of appeals affirmed, concluding counsel could waive the right to have a district judge conduct voir dire.

## Issues

1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), whether defense counsel’s express consent alone permits a magistrate judge to preside over voir dire and jury selection in a federal felony trial, absent the defendant’s personal, on-the-record consent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court held that counsel’s express consent is sufficient to allow a magistrate judge to conduct felony jury selection as an “additional duty” under § 636(b)(3).
- The Court treated acceptance of a magistrate judge for voir dire as a tactical decision ordinarily committed to counsel.
- Because counsel expressly consented and no objection was made during voir dire, the district court was not required to obtain Gonzalez’s personal consent.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a magistrate judge may perform “additional duties” not inconsistent with the Constitution and federal law, including presiding over felony voir dire when the parties consent.
- Consent for a magistrate judge to conduct jury selection may be given by defense counsel without a separate personal waiver by the defendant on the record.
- Attorney-client decisionmaking in criminal cases distinguishes between decisions requiring the defendant’s personal choice (e.g., pleading guilty) and tactical trial-management decisions that counsel may make.
- Selecting a magistrate judge for jury selection is a trial-management choice influenced by the judicial officer’s discretion and style during voir dire, making it suitable for counsel’s control.
- Requiring a defendant’s personal, on-the-record consent for this tactical choice is not mandated by § 636(b)(3) and could add unnecessary procedural burden.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, in a federal felony trial, a magistrate judge may conduct voir dire and jury selection under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) based on defense counsel’s express consent alone, without the defendant’s personal, on-the-record consent, so long as there is no objection.


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