Gonzales v. United States

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’’

Barbee, Stephen Dale

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2021

decision of whether to waive Article III judge at voir dire belongs to counsel

United States v. Bowline

Tenth Circuit, 2019

"What suffices for waiver depends on the nature of the right at issue." (internal quotation marks omitted).

State of Washington v. Carlos Hernandez, II

Court of Appeals of Washington, 2018

Defense counsel may waive a defendant’s right to have an Article III judge preside over voir dire.

United States v. Henry Gill

Fifth Circuit, 2016

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”

Cooke v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware, 2014

right to plead not guilty is a fundamental right that a criminal defendant must waive personally and that an attorney alone cannot waive

United States v. Brooks

E.D. New York, 2014

“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.”

United States v. Renee Pratt

Fifth Circuit, 2013

"[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.”

Commonwealth v. Hunsberger

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2012

holding that defense counsel may decide whether to consent to voir dire proceedings before a federal magistrate

Gonzales v. United States

Opinion

GEORGE J. GONZALES
v.
UNITED STATES

GEORGE J. GONZALES
v.
UNITED STATES

Related

Opinion

GEORGE J. GONZALES v. UNITED STATES

Related

GEORGE J. GONZALES
v.
UNITED STATES