28 U.S.C. § 632
Character of service
1968—Pub. L. 90–578 substituted provisions as to character of service of full-time and part-time United States magistrates for former provisions prescribing jurisdiction and powers of national park commissioners and practice and procedure before such officers. See section 636 of this title.
“United States magistrate judges” substituted for “United States magistrates” wherever appearing in text pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of this title.
Amendment by Pub. L. 90–578 effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases, 1928–2011 · leading case: Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947).
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947). “Fifth Amendment and 28 U.S.C. § 632 . California, however, is one of a few states that permit limited comment upon a defendant's failure to testify.”
A.I. Trade Fin., Inc. v. Petra Int'l Banking Corp., 62 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “The court held first that its jurisdiction rested both upon the parties’ diversity of citizenship and upon the specific grant of jurisdiction over suits involving foreign banking transactions of Edge Act corporations in 28 U.S.C. § 632 . The court reasoned that because its…”
United States v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560 (1st Cir. 1996). “§ 3481 (formerly designated as 28 U.S.C. § 632 ). See Bruno v. United States, 308 U.”
Kent v. United States, 157 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1946). “So also the Statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 632 , providing that the "person so charged" shall be a competent witness at his own request but not otherwise; "and his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him", is without application, for it is limited to…”
Ddi Seamless Cylinder Int'l, Inc., & Seamless Cylinder Int'l Corp. v. Gen. Fire Extinguisher Corp., 14 F.3d 1163 (7th Cir. 1994). “28 U.S.C. § 632 (b). But Judge Bobrick is a full-time magistrate judge.”
Arnold v. United States, 94 F.2d 499 (10th Cir. 1938). “37, 28 U.S. C.A. § 632. Each defendant in this action, including those who pleaded guilty as well as those who went to trial on pleas of not guilty, was represented by a different attorney.”
Walker v. United States, 93 F.2d 792 (8th Cir. 1938). “30 , 28 U.S. C.A. § 632, and there is no evidence that at that time she had waived this immunity or that she had any intention of doing so.”
United States v. Bruno, 105 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1939). “This he failed to do, and told them instead that it was a defendant’s privilege to testify, but that when he did so, his credibility was “to be determined in the light of his interest which ***is***a matter which may seriously affect the credence that shall be given to his…”
Milton v. United States, 110 F.2d 556 (D.C. Cir. 1940). “30 , 28 U.S.C.A. § 632 : “In the trial of all indictments, informations, complaints, and other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes, offenses, and misdemeanors, in the United States courts, Territorial courts, and courts-martial, and courts of…”
Baker v. United States, 115 F.2d 533 (8th Cir. 1940). “The Fifth Amendment and the statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 632 , protect the defendant in a criminal prosecution in the rignt to remain off the witness stand, and prosecuting attorneys may not comment on the fact that the accused may have availed himself of that right (Rice v.”
Kelly v. United States, 194 F.2d 150 (D.C. Cir. 1952). “In federal courts by statute of 1878, former Title 28 U.S.C. § 632 , now 18 U.S.C. § 3481 , Fed.”
Brown v. United States, 56 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1932). “In 1878 Congress enacted the following statute: "In the trial of all indictments, informations, complaints, and other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes, offenses, and misdemeanors, in the United States courts, * * * the person so charged shall, at…”
State v. Dreher, 118 So. 85 (La. 1928). “30, e: 37 [28 USCA § 632]). That part of the act of 1916 therefore reads: “In the trial of all indictments, complaints, and other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes or offenses, a person so charged shall, at his own request, but not otherwise, be…”
Hood v. United States, 59 F.2d 153 (10th Cir. 1932). “Code (28 USCA § 632). If the prosecuting attorney made such comment and it was not condemned by the court, it was reversible error.”
Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 827 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 632 and 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b).”
Yoder v. United States, 80 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1935). “30 , 28 U.S.C.A. § 632 ), and in 1898 England followed suit.”
Chadwick v. United States, 117 F.2d 902 (5th Cir. 1941). “The instruction was in accordance with the statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 632 , and was altogether favorable to the appellants.”
Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 820 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Defendants re *556 moved the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 632 and 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b).”
United States v. Aubrey E. Bain, 596 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1979). “§ 632 3 which legislates 4 against any presumption from a defendant’s failure to testify requires that a defendant be given a properly requested charge 5 similar to the one requested here. 6 Next, we must address the government’s argument that the requested charge was…”
State v. Barker, 399 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. 1966). “, Judicial Code and Judiciary, 28 U.S.C. § 632 ], which provides that the person charged with the commission of a crime shall, at his own request, but not otherwise, be a competent witness, and that his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him.”
United States v. Schneiderman, 102 F. Supp. 52 (S.D. Cal. 1951). “See former 28 U.S.C. § 632 (1940 ed.) ; Reviser’s note 18 U.”
United States v. Kovac, 36 M.J. 521 (1992). “Also, within the federal system, part-time magistrate judges are authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 632 (b). 2. Military Part-Time Judges In the military judiciary, judges with other primary duties have been an important element from the very beginning in 1969.”
Rice v. United States, 35 F.2d 689 (2d Cir. 1929). “Again referring to appellants’ failure to call an engineer who had been consulted by them, counsel said: “While a man with the facts [Thompson] sat back there enshrouded in his own and the defendants’ silence.”
Wood v. United States, 494 F. Supp. 792 (E.D. Va. 1980). “28 U.S.C. § 632 (b). No one would suggest a magistrate is a contract provider of services.”
United States of Am. Ex Rel. Esaw Mitchell, 42060 v. Warren Pinto, Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison Farm, Rahway, New Jersey, 438 F.2d 814 (3rd Cir. 1971). “* * * The Fifth Amendment and the statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 632 (now, 18 U.S.C. § 3481 ), protect the defendant in a criminal prosecution in the right to remain off the witness stand, and prosecuting attorneys may not comment on the fact that the accused may have availed himself of…”
United States v. Beck, 118 F.2d 178 (7th Cir. 1941). “The act of Congress of March 16, 1878 [ 28 U.S.C.A. § 632 ] provides that in the trial of indictments, informations, etc.”
United States v. Ryno, 130 F. Supp. 685 (S.D. Cal. 1955). “’ Attention then is called to the fact that Congress in 1864 had enacted that no witness should be excluded from testifying in any civil action, with certain exceptions, because he was a party to or interested in the issue tried; and that in 1878 (c.”
Hersh v. United States, 68 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1934). “” (28 USCA § 632) During the examination of the witness Klein the court stated “the jury merely wants to listen to the defendants and find out their explanations of these several things — I assume.”
State v. Dean, 447 P.2d 890 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). “” 28 U.S.C.A. § 632 (as it read in 1939; present version: 18 U.”
McCormack v. Citibank, N.A., 979 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1992). “As this transaction involved international banking, jurisdiction was premised on 28 U.S.C. § 632 . The district court granted motions to dismiss on thé ground that McCormack’s action was barred by statute.”
United States v. Endsley, 10 C.M.A. 255 (1959). “The instruction was in accordance with the statute, 28 USCA § 632, and was altogether favorable to the appellants.”
Brooks v. Dist. of Columbia, 48 A.2d 339 (D.C. 1946). “30 , 28 U.S.C.A. § 632 , provided that the failure of a defendant in a criminal case to testify should not create any presumption against him.”
United States v. Spector, 102 F. Supp. 75 (S.D. Cal. 1951). “See former 28 U.S.C. § 632 (1940 ed.); Reviser's note 18 U.”
West Va. Jud. Inquiry Com'n v. Allamong, 252 S.E.2d 159 (W. Va. 1979). “Code, 50-1-12, is found in 28 U.S.C. § 632 : "(a) Full-time United States magistrates may not engage in the practice of law, and may not engage in any other business, occupation, or employment inconsistent with the expeditious, proper, and impartial performance of their duties…”
Dembowski v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D.N.J. 2002). “” 28 U.S.C. § 632 (b) provides: (a) Full-time United States magistrates may not engage in the practice of law, and may not engage in any other business, occupation, or employment inconsistent with the expeditious, proper, and impartial performance of their duties as judicial…”
In re United States Attorney for Orders Pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control & Safe Streets Act of 1968, 784 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D.N.Y 1992). “” 28 U.S.C. § 632 (a). 6 *1024 United States magistrates today receive a salary close to that of district court judges, which cannot be reduced during their term in office, 28 U.”
Weaver v. Thomas, 399 F. Supp. 615 (S.D. Tex. 1975). “See 28 U.S.C. § 632 (1970). Any claim for equitable relief is moot since jilaintiff’s petition has been filed and is undergoing consideration in the Western District.”
Harding v. United States, 182 F.2d 524 (4th Cir. 1950). “Proof must warrant an inference of participation in the crime before guilt can be found. The failure of defendant to testify does not constitute evidence against him nor warrant an inference of guilt.”
State v. La Rocca, 121 So. 744 (La. 1929). “There is no authority for it in this state or in any other jurisdiction where the Legislature has removed the common-law disability by declaring that a defendant on trial “shall, at his own request but not otherwise, be deemed a competent witness.” That is the precise language…”
In Re US Attorney, 784 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D.N.Y 1992).
United States v. Martinelli, 240 F. Supp. 365 (N.D. Cal. 1965).
Morgan v. United States, 31 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1929). “The statute (28 USCA § 632) provides that a defendant in a criminal charge “shall, at his own request, but not otherwise, he a competent witness.”
State v. Liner, 116 So. 712 (La. 1928).
United States v. Schuermann, 79 F. Supp. 247 (E.D. Mo. 1948).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.