Peretz v. United States

498 U.S. 1066

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Peretz v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 501 U.S. 923 →

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 22, 1991·No. No. 90-615·Published

Opinion

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari granted limited to the following questions:

“1. Does 28 U. S. C. § 636 permit a magistrate to conduct the voir dire in a felony trial if the defendant consents?

“2. If 28 U. S. C. § 636 permits a magistrate to conduct a felony trial voir dire provided that the defendant consents, is the statute consistent with Article III?

“3. If the magistrate’s supervision of the voir dire in petitioner’s trial was error, did the conduct of petitioner and his attorney constitute a waiver of the right to raise this error on appeal?” Reported below: 904 F. 2d 34.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari granted limited to the following questions:

“1. Does 28 U. S. C. § 636 permit a magistrate to conduct the voir dire in a felony trial if the defendant consents?

“2. If 28 U. S. C. § 636 permits a magistrate to conduct a felony trial voir dire provided that the defendant consents, is the statute consistent with Article III?

“3. If the magistrate’s supervision of the voir dire in petitioner’s trial was error, did the conduct of petitioner and his attorney constitute a waiver of the right to raise this error on appeal?” Reported below: 904 F. 2d 34.

Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 1066 (1991).

Pincite

498 U.S. 1066 (Peretz v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment

28 U.S.C. § 636

Opinion

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari granted limited to the following questions:

Related