Citation network
Gonzalez Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 12, 2008
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Gonzalez v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 06-11612 (2008) Syllabus October Term, 2007 Gonzalez V. UnitedSearch
-
a federal magistrate judge may preside over the voir dire and jury selection in a felony criminal trial. Peretz v. UnitedSearch
-
Under Gomez v. UnitedSearch
-
s own consent to waive. See, e.g., New York v. HillSearch
-
Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Gonzalez v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 06-11612 (2008) Opinion of the Court Gonzalez V. UnitedSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-11612 Homero Gonzalez, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
judges may preside over the voir dire and selection of prospective jurors in a felony criminal trial. Peretz v. UnitedSearch
-
F. 3d 390, 394 (2007). The Courts of Appeals differ on this issue. Compare ibid. , with United States v. MaraghSearch
-
see also United States v. DesirSearch
-
considered the question of magistrate judges presiding over the jury selection process in felony trials. In Gomez v. UnitedSearch
-
In Peretz v. UnitedSearch
-
it suffices to note that we have acknowledged that some rights cannot be waived by the attorney alone. See New York v. HillSearch
-
For certain fundamental rights, the defendant must personally make an informed waiver. See, e.g., Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
Link v. WabashSearch
-
R. Co. , 370 U. S. 626 , 634 (1962) (quoting Smith v. AyerSearch
-
Thus, decisions by counsel are generally given effect as to what arguments to pursue, see Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
U. S. 745 , 751 (1983), what evidentiary objections to raise, see Henry v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 443 , 451 (1965), and what agreements to conclude regarding the admission of evidence, see United States v. McGillSearch
-
mystifying process even for well-informed laypersons. This is one of the reasons for the right to counsel. See Powell v. AlabamaSearch
-
or at least the law should so assume. See Jones v. BarnesSearch
-
see also Tollett v. HendersonSearch
-
s consent in order to waive the right. See, e.g., Florida v. NixonSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 536 U. S. 545 , 555 (2002) (quoting United States ex rel. Attorney General v. DelawareSearch
-
see also Reno v. FloresSearch
-
Peretz , supra , at 938 (quoting United States v. RaddatzSearch
-
b), with Roell v. WithrowSearch
-
are not presented here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. It is so ordered. Gonzalez v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 06-11612 (2008) Scalia, J., Concurring in Judgment Gonzalez V. UnitedSearch
-
which would have the effect of revoking the agency with respect to the action in question. See Brookhart v. JanisSearch
-
rights cannot be waived unless a defendant personally participates in the waiver. See, e.g., Taylor v. IllinoisSearch
-
but never in a case where the suggestion governed the disposition. In New York v. HillSearch
-
an interpretation of the statute creating the right that counsel had waived, see id., at 115. And in Florida v. NixonSearch
-
the rights to trial, jury, and counsel. The exceptional line of precedent involves the right to counsel. See Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Since a formula repeated in dictum but never the basis for judgment is not owed stare decisis weight, see Lingle v. ChevronSearch
-
But I doubt many think that the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses cannot be waived by counsel. See Diaz v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. RathbunSearch
-
of the 19th century, including Chief Justice Shaw of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. See Commonwealth v. DaileySearch
-
provides that the waiver come from the defendant personally. Footnote 1 On the right to jury, Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
later questioned whether Thompson even held that, and went on to hold that the right is waivable. See Patton v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial