Ford v. United States
484 U.S. 1034
SCOTUS
1988
Check Treatment

*1 1034 §1988 in upholding

thrеe Circuits fees awards the involuntary- v. compliance-plus-mootness Barry, cоntext. Grano 251 U. S. 289, 294-295, 1104, (1986); D. C. 783 F. 2d 1109-1110 Wil App. (CA9 Alioto, 1980) 845, curiam), v. (per liams 625 2d 847-848 F. Marshall, denied, (1981); cert. 450 U. S. 1012 Doe v. 622 F. 2d (CA5 (1981). deniеd, ‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍118, 1980), 119-120 cert. 451 U. S. 993 issue this by petition The federal raised for certiorari is substan- requires by tial and resolution this Court. An of award fees § petitioners may under 1988to these be for aрpropriate, petition- ers in “prevailing parties”: although were one sеnse dispute the moot, was to seemingly by later held be the valid oral ruling the trial cоurt them all that gave they sought. hand, On the other a determination, there has never been final on appeal, tested that petitioners’ was position legally sоund. Arguably, respondents should not be forced to bear an of fees they award whеre have finally never been to determined have violated the Federal Con- steadfastly stitution or laws and have maintained the contrary position. And under arguably, Munsingwear, United v. States Inc., 36, (1950), 340 U. S. 39-40 no party prejudiced by should be statutory a decision which in the scheme judicial for decisionmak- ing only preliminary. was The resolution cоmpeting of these con- plainly cerns is important determining to who is a “prevаiling § party” under of 1988. Because the conflict in the courts over law, this question grant of federal I would certiorari.

No. 87-5570. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer- Ford v. ‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍United States. tiorari denied. White,

Justice dissеnting. The issue here is whether it is consistent with the Federal Mag- Act a delegate istratеs for district court to a jury selection to mag- In case, petitioner istrate. this by was convicted a jury federal on felony charge stealing the of propеrty. Government A United Magistrate presided States over the selection of jury which, the despite relatively the routine nature of the took about charges, four diffiсulty. hours and was not free of Neither the Govern- ment nor defense expressly objеcted counsel consented or to the Magistrate’s over the voir presiding аppeal, dire On proceedings. petitioner argued that the District Court the viоlated Federal (1982 §§631-639 Magistrates Act, 28 Ill), U. S. C. ed. and Supp. by the to allowing Magistrate preside jury over A selection.

1035 797 F. 2d rejected argument. Fifth this ‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍1329 panel of the Circuit (1987). (1986), denied, 479 U. S. 1070 cert. *2 banc, in a split en and deci- accepted rehearing case for

The wаs affirmed, grounds. on other It ruled though full court sion the power not a district court the to grant delegate that the Act does dut[y]” under 28 magistrate to as an “additional jury selеction a § of this 636(b)(3), opposite and that the construction sec- U. S. C. 1430, issues.” 824 F. 2d “grave wоuld constitutional pose tion (1987). peti- Nonetheless, it affirmed the conviction because 1435 and the viola- object procedure had to this at trial tioner fаiled to it not render the to ‍‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍error because did plain tion did not amount result, in fundamеntally Judge Jolly unfair. concurred the trial magistrate Constitution a concluding under the Act and the that objects. conduct voir dire at a trial unless the defendant may jury Id., dissentеd, by Rubin three other Judge joined at 1439. or that it not violate either the Act the concluding does judges, to conduct the voir dire magistrate proceedings Constitution for a Id., a at 1440-1448. in criminal trial. incorrect, the magistrate

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

No. 87-5620. rari denied. White, dissenting.

Justice is is this for certiorari what the by petition The issue presented preindictment delay dеtermining prosecutorial for if correct test of Due Process Clause the Fifth a violation of the amounts to (1977). Lovasco, 431 See United States v. U. S. 783 Amendment. by he the рrejudiced that was case, petitioner argued In this the him, it in for was filing against the indictmеnt prosecutorial delay and he years consequently after he 21 of age, filed 13 turned days of Delin- for the the Federal Juvenile ineligible protections was