The Associated Press

Mon, May 12, 2008 (7:37 a.m.)

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal magistrate may preside over jury selection in criminal cases, as long as the attorney for a defendant explicitly permits it.

The 8-1 decision came in a drug-trafficking case from Laredo, Texas, where a lawyer for defendant Homero Gonzalez allowed a magistrate to oversee the questioning of prospective jurors.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said federal law allows the practice. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

The case deals with the difference between U.S. District judges and magistrate judges.

U.S. District judges are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, have life tenure and their salaries cannot be reduced. Magistrates, appointed by U.S. District judges, have no such protection.

A Mexican citizen, Gonzalez does not speak fluent English and did not have an interpreter at the bench conference where his attorney consented to designating the magistrate for the task.

Ordinarily, U.S. District Court judges participate in selecting juries for criminal and civil trials, a process known as voir dire.

Lawyers regard voir dire as one of the most important parts of a case because it often uncovers biases, leading to excluding members of the group of citizens from which a jury is selected.

The case is Gonzales v. U.S., 06-11612.

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/