Ford v. United States, 484 U.S. 1034 (1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Ford v. United States, 484 U.S. 1034 (1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
95 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Dees (ca5, 1997-10-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" United States v. Dees (3×)
5th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1435 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988); cf. In re Clay, 35 F.3d 190, 193 (5th Cir.1994) (discussing importance of jury trials to Article III power). 5 Felony trials are complex affairs, requiring close oversight of delicate constitutional rights.
examined Cited "see" United States v. Mang Sun Wong, Chi Hong Lam and Hang Fang Ko, Mang Sun Wong (4×)
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1438-39 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc) (although error to allow magistrate to preside over jury selection during federal felony trial, error rendered harmless by defendant’s failure to object), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Garcia (4×)
2d Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1438 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Garcia (4×)
2d Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1438 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988). 13 The first issue to be resolved is what was the aim of Congress when it enacted Sec. 636.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Peretz v. United States
SCOTUS · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Ford, 824 F. 2d 1430 (CA5 1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 1034 (1988); United States v. DeFiore, 720 F. 2d 757 (CA2 1983), cert. denied sub nom.
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Weiss (3×)
unknown court · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1438-39 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Weiss (3×)
unknown court · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1438-39 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Martinez-Torres (3×)
unknown court · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1434-39 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc) (holding practice to be impermissible, but affirming conviction because defendant “did not object and ... trial was fundamentally fair”), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Santos Jesus Martinez-Torres, United States of America v. Luis Alfredo Martinez-Torres, United States of America v. Epifanio Martinez-Torres, A/K/A \Fanny (3×)
unknown court · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1434-39 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc) (holding practice to be impermissible, but affirming conviction because defendant "did not object and ... trial was fundamentally fair"), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Esnoel Lopez-Pena, United States of America v. Hector Burgos, A/K/A \Tito (3×)
unknown court · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1434-39 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc) (holding practice to be impermissible, but affirming conviction because defendant "did not object and ... trial was fundamentally fair"), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Lopez-Pena (3×)
Or. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Ford, 824 F.2d 1430, 1434-39 (5th Cir.1987) (en banc) (holding practice to be impermissible, but affirming conviction because defendant “did not object and ... trial was fundamentally fair”), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1034 , 108 S.Ct. 741 , 98 L.Ed.2d 776 (1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lois E. Hilton Ford
v.
United States
87-5570.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 19, 1988.
484 U.S. 1034
White.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice WHITE, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Justice White,

dissenting.

The issue here is whether it is consistent with the Federal Magistrates Act for a district court to delegate jury selection to a magistrate. In this case, petitioner was convicted by a federal jury on the felony charge of stealing Government property. A United States Magistrate presided over the selection of the jury which, despite the relatively routine nature of the charges, took about four hours and was not free of difficulty. Neither the Government nor defense counsel expressly consented or objected to the Magistrate’s presiding over the voir dire proceedings. On appeal, petitioner argued that the District Court violated the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U. S. C. §§631-639 (1982 ed. and Supp. Ill), by allowing the Magistrate to preside over jury selection. A[*1035] panel of the Fifth Circuit rejected this argument. 797 F. 2d 1329 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 1070 (1987).

The case was accepted for rehearing en banc, and in a split decision the full court affirmed, though on other grounds. It ruled that the Act does not grant a district court the power to delegate jury selection to a magistrate as an “additional dut[y]” under 28 U. S. C. § 636(b)(3), and that the opposite construction of this section would pose “grave constitutional issues.” 824 F. 2d 1430, 1435 (1987). Nonetheless, it affirmed the conviction because petitioner had failed to object to this procedure at trial and the violation did not amount to plain error because it did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. Judge Jolly concurred in the result, concluding that under the Act and the Constitution a magistrate may conduct voir dire at a jury trial unless the defendant objects. Id., at 1439. Judge Rubin dissented, joined by three other judges, concluding that it does not violate either the Act or the Constitution for a magistrate to conduct the voir dire proceedings in a criminal trial. Id., at 1440-1448.

If the decision below is incorrect, and this use of the magistrate violates either the Act or the Constitution, then it is not obvious that this violation can be dismissed under the “plain error” doctrine. And the position of the Fifth Circuit on this issue conflicts with two decisions of the Ninth Circuit. United States v. Peacock, 761 F. 2d 1313, 1317-1319, cert. denied, 474 U. S. 847 (1985); United States v. Bezold, 760 F. 2d 999, 1001-1003 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1063 (1986). See also United States v. Rivera-Sola, 713 F. 2d 866, 872-873 (CA1 1983) (dictum). The split among the Circuits on this issue warrants our granting certiorari.