Government of the Virgin Islands v. Raymond Williams

guideline provides In Williams’ the minimum of fif sentence above THE GOVERNMENT OF VIRGIN wit, years teen 360 months to life. The ISLANDS, Appellee, —to imposed district court a sentence of 360 v. guideline range months. Since and the Raymond WILLIAMS, Appellant. actually imposed sentence are well within statute, range authorized there is no No. 89-3177. punishment: only single double substan punishment

tial for a violent offense com Appeals, United States Court of a recidivist. See United States mitted Third Circuit. Garrett, (N.D.Ill. F.Supp. Argued Dec. 1989. 1989).

Decided Dec. 1989. V. imposing sentence,

Before the district special

court ruled that the pro- assessment (Supp.

vision contained in 18 U.S.C. § 1987)

V was enacted in violation of the

Origination Clause of the United States

Constitution, I, Accordingly, art. 7. § impose special

court did not assessment part of Williams’ sentence.

At government appeal- No.

ed from the district court’s order under 28 government also

petitioned for a writ of mandamus at No. light

89-3307. of our recent decision in Simpson,

United States 885 F.2d 36

Cir.1989), government’s appeal at No. juris-

89-3184 must dismissed for lack petition

diction. The for writ of mandamus granted

will be and the district court will impose

be directed to vacate its order and

special assessment.

VI. judgment

We will affirm the of convic- government’s

tion. We will dismiss the

appeal jurisdic- at No. 89-3184 for lack of grant government’s peti-

tion. We will for a at No.

tion writ mandamus 89-

3307. The district court directed to bewill declaring

vacate its order U.S.C. § special impose

unconstitutional and as-

sessment. beating Ms. began Appellant

Williams.1 help. Ms. Williams, for screamed who brothers, Richard Felix and two Williams’ aunt, 77-year-old Pierre, as her as well When Williams, to her aid. came Idona arrived, attacked Richard they Williams hammer, attempted to who Pierre with brandishing a knife. defend himself grabbed this knife and stabbed Williams Felix Pierre to death. Williams and Idona a number Richard Pierre He also stabbed times, damage to causing permanent Tucker, Defend- Federal Public Robert L. was immedi Pierre’s arm. Williams (Argued), er, McKelvin Asst. Thurston T. ately arrested. Defender, Virgin Is- Federal Public issued, charges were After formal lands, appellant. for 28,1988 filed notice of January Williams Atty., Mark H. Halpern, U.S. Terry M. insanity defense. his intention to assert Atty., U.S. (Argued), Asst. U.S. Bonner the defendant to The district court ordered Islands, appellee. Virgin for to deter- undergo psychiatric examination (a) was basis for mine whether there GIBBONS, Judge, Chief Before legally at the that he was insane his claim NYGAARD, Circuit and MANSMANN committed, (b) and time the crimes were Judges. mentally was com- whether the defendant ensuing psychi- petent to stand trial. THE OF COURT OPINION although revealed that atric evaluation GIBBONS, Judge: Chief history of with schizo- had a bouts Williams 8, 1988, phrenia, there was no indication that government January On him to commit the charged Raymond disorder either caused Virgin Islands charged, arising acts with which he was variety of felonies criminal Williams with a impaired ability to stand trial. At January 1 in which or incident on from an fur- request, the court ordered allegedly killed two individuals Williams’ Williams 9, psychiatric The trial evaluation on June seriously injured another. ther and 16, 1988, the same results. and on which furnished commenced on November jury 24 a in the District Court November 16, 1988, trial Williams’ On November Virgin convicted Williams of Islands place that Jury took commenced. murder, degree voluntary man- second supervised a United morning, and was homicide, attempted assault slaughter, Geoffrey W. Barnard. magistrate, use of a degree, the first and unlawful government ob- Williams nor the Neither during deadly weapon the commission arrangement. Once jected to this The district court sentenced violent crime. judge took the district empanelled, following day sixty years him on the proceeding. Before the trial control appeals from the imprisonment. Williams however, continued, counsel raised defense sentence, to a contending that he is entitled Williams’ men- a third time the issue of for will affirm. new trial. We moving yet another competency, tal hearing ex- After psychiatric examination. I. Williams, the dis- testimony from tensive competent him to be January trict court found during evening Sometime his mo- trial, accordingly denied stand argument broke out between and the follow- proceeded, trial tion. The whom he had and the woman with was convicted. months, ing week Williams Sandra past several lived for Raymond Williams are unrelated. 1. Sandra Williams end, To that II. No. Pub.L. 82 Stat. filed his months after Williams Three reprinted in 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad- ren- appeal, notice of (codified min. News 1280 as amended at 28 v. United dered its decision 631-639), empowered the district §§ —

States, -, appoint magistrates United courts to ease, In the Court “in and to at such numbers serve Act, Magistrates held that the Federal judicial the district” locations within as the 636(b)(3),does not authorize feder- U.S.C. § 631(a). id. appropriate, at courts deemed § magistrates preside jury over selec- al improve Congress hoped quality the of felony proceedings tion in defen- magistrates by, among things, other affirmatively objects. at- dant id. requiring magistrates attorneys, to be tempts advantage of to take 631(b)(1), strictly regulating jobs at § arguing that he is entitled to a new trial hold, id. could at magistrate in his case lacked because the 632(a), 631(c), abolishing previ- §§ In supervise voir dire. re- system payment per-case basis, on a ous argues sponse, government id. at 634. Concomitant with these im- § object to the use of the Williams failed to professional provements atmosphere magistrate, and that therefore can- magistracy, dramatically the Act as a for relief. We are not serve basis expanded scope magis- of duties that Supreme in- unpersuaded that Court perform. taking trates could In addition to prohibit tended the use “powers and duties conferred or conduct voir dire when a imposed upon United States commission- consents, reject defendant and thus we ers,” 636(a)(1), magistrates id. at were § argument. Williams’ empowered special to serve as masters in matters, certain civil to assist district court Magistrates A. The Federal judges pretrial in the conduct of and dis- 1968, Congress the office of In abolished covery proceedings, prelimi- and to conduct commissioner and in its the United States nary applications post-trial reviews of place erected the modern federal 636(a)(2)-(4); Id. relief. U.S.C. system. purpose trates The main of the 3401(b). amended, presently the Act As § Act, Magistrates 631- U.S.C. §§ further, goes empowering mag- now much 639, improve quality was twofold: to trial on consent istrates conduct civil judicial serving just officers below the 636(c), parties, 28 U.S.C. as well as § judges, drastically level of federal and to involving “mi- preside at criminal trials enlarge responsibilities of those offi- long the defendant nor offenses” so heavy cers so as to relieve the burdens on presence of a feder- waives his the federal docket that in had reached 3401(b). judge. al 18 U.S.C. § Report accom- critical mass. As the House enumerating powers, these In addition to explained: panying the bill provides that the Act also “[a] raising By the standards of the lowest may assigned such additional duties as be increasing judicial office and are not inconsistent with Constitution scope responsibilities that can be laws the United States.” office, discharged system will by that 636(b)(3). 1976, Congress promul- capable increasing the overall be made gated spate of modifications to the Feder- judiciary, while efficiency of the Federal part its firm al Act as belief providing higher time stan- at the same impressive suc- the Act had achieved justice point many at the where dard of it was time to cess since 1968 and first come into contact with individuals scope responsi- increase even further the the courts. delegated to federal could be bilities that H.R.Rep. No. H.R.Rep. Cong., magistrates. 90th 2d Sess. No. 5, reprinted in reprinted in 1968 U.S.Code Cong. Cong., & Ad- 94th 2d Sess. 6162, 6164- Cong. Admin.News U.S.Code & 4257. min. News in which that, in cases at least argued to en- these modifications 65. One of magistrate has objects, a federal “additional defendant importance of the hance the dire. over voir authority part of no clause, been which had duties” arguing that disagreed, pro- by moving government legislation, original duty” that “additional of the Act. is an subsection separate vision to a hoped magistrate within Congress to a doing, delegated In so at 6172. Id. 636(b)(3) Act. flexibility system greater meaning with of section to imbue the op- judges the by providing district opinion, the In a unanimous experi- innovative portunity to “continue that, from the consent held absent judicial offi- use of this in the mentations contemplate defendant, Congress “did not time, autho- placing this At the same cer. jury selection inclusion of empha- separate subsection a rization in magistrate’s additional among a trials way by any in restricted that it is not sizes Gomez, 2247. At the 109 S.Ct. at duties.” grant authority of specific any that its deci- outset, made clear the Court magistrates.” Id. by the constitu- impelled primarily sion system that the hardly be denied It can in forcing a defendant of implications tional Act has Magistrates by the Federal created accept magistrate a felony proceeding a expectations of highest exceeded scope expansive of Given at voir dire. it. In modern conceived legislators who clause, the Court duties” the “additional magistrates ac- federal practice, federal only legal constraint” on agreed “[t]he judicial staggering volume for a count delegated to a assignments that 1987, example, magistrates work. in found ... the Con- magistrate “must be judicial nearly half a million presided over Gomez, at 2240-41. 109 S.Ct. stitution.” S.Rep. No. proceedings. See reasoned, just such Court In this 7, 1988 reprinted in Cong., 2d Sess. 100th arose, problem but because a constitutional 5564. As a Cong. Admin.News & U.S.Code interpreta- policyto avoid “settled noted, particu- Report recent Senate “[i]n engenders a statute that tion of federal over conducted lar, magistrates [in 1987] alter- if a reasonable constitutional issues felony 134,000 proceedings preliminary poses no constitution- interpretation native 197,000referenc- cases; than more handled 2241, appropriate at it was question,” al id. matters; pretrial and criminal es of civil grounds. statutory a to reach result 6,500 security social than reviewed more “context the overall Looking to the 27,000 fil- prisoner more than appeals and scheme,” id., the concluded statutory Court 95,000 misde- tried more than ings; and did not duties” clause the “additional 4,900 on consent of civil cases meanors and the de- in cases voir which include dire the bloat- at 5565. Given parties.” Id. reasoned, First, the objects. Court fendant now have that district courts ed dockets at the thought to “commence” trial is a ordinary, the role expect as come to constitu- jury for certain selection sys- judicial today’s magistrate in federal including criminal defen- a purposes, tional indispensible. nothing less than tem is at trial. Id. right present to be dant’s Second, expressed con- the Court at 2246. B. United any only not about absence cerns backdrop against It was stan- establishing applicable provision last term decided Supreme Court a exercised when to be dard of review — -, States, U.S. United dire, also but voir magistrate conducts (1989). The defen- exercising limits about inherent district objected case dants heavily that relies so process a review over federal dire to a voir assignment court’s cues. Id. at 2246-47. on non-verbal pres- instead requesting magistrate, however, not, reach The Court did objections These judge. ence of district whether in this case: question presented overruled, were the defendants were permits a they felonies with convicted of the over the the defendants appeal, charged. were On relinquishes Cir.1986) (failure object In Go- a defendant consents. jury a question whether the mez, appeal as “wheth- framed the issue the Court peremptory chal- prosecution misused its in a at the selection of presiding er lenges). con- felony trial without the defendant’s duty within the

sent” is an additional rule, long-standing exception A to this Magistrates Act. meaning the Federal however, jurisdic- raise permits party also id. added); see (emphasis Id. at 2239 time, objections irrespective at tional government’s harm- (rejecting recently of consent. As the grounds that analysis on the less error commented, “every appellate federal court which, case in apply “does not obligation ‘satisfy itself not special has a despite objection the defendant’s and with- only jurisdiction, of its own but also that of any meaningful review a district out review,’ in a cause under the lower courts exceeds his judge, an officer though parties prepared are even open thus left selecting jury”). Williamsport concede it.” Bender v. Area consent question whether a defendant’s Dist., Sch. a difference as to whether district makes (1986) 1326, 1331, (quoting magistrate. may assign voir dire to a Maurer, Mitchell v. appeals that have addressed The courts (1934)). 79 S.Ct. L.Ed. 338 thus far come to different this issue have Colafella, also Lunderstadt v. F.2d 885 See, v. e.g., United States conclusions. (3d Cir.1989). Hence, litigant 69 a must (1st Cir.1989) Lopez-Pena, 890 F.2d 490 generally object to matters he wishes ulti- (holding assignment that mately appeal, ques- if to but the defect plain er- magistrate not amount to to did jurisdiction, relates to the court’s tion Mang Wong, ror); United States v. Sun litigant may object any at time. Cir.1989) (2d (recog- 884 F.2d 1545-46 difficulty in We find little conclud Gomez)] exception to nizing a consent by ing that the claim advanced is France, (9th v. F.2d 223 United States 886 nature, and thus is immun jurisdictional Cir.1989) (holding provides that re- general The ized from the rule of waiver. the defendant consented to lief even where magistrates federal is de jurisdiction of magistrate). the use of a by the Federal Act. As fined explained: this court has Objection Contemporaneous The C. magistrate jurisdiction of the to [T]he Rule solely on the case is not based decide a government asserts that Williams’ The a parties, but derives from consent magistrate a object failure to to the use of court. proper designation the district chal- extinguished to at voir dire jurisdiction is stat- Because district court support appeal. In lenge procedure that on proper desig- utory, ability to make a its government relies position, of this of, thereby jurisdic- to confer nation rule of objection” “contemporaneous on, magistrate a creature of a is also tion review, party a requires appellate statute. contempora- object judicial proceeding a (3d Morrissey, re F.2d 102 In erro- any be neously to matter believed Gomez, Cir.1983). at See also neous, opportu- relinquishing the peril at (commenting that a criminal defen- appeal. challenge matter on nity to that stages all critical “right a to have dant has Gagnon, States v. See United person a trial conducted of a criminal 1482, 1484-87, 522, 527-31, 105 S.Ct. preside. Thus harm- jurisdiction to with also curiam); see (1985) (per apply in a felo- analysis does not less-error Urian, (3d F.2d 124 United States which, despite the defendant's ny case in Cir.1988) (defendant preserve failed to any meaningful re- objection and without court erroneous- the district issue whether exceeds judge, by district view a questions of the ask certain ly refused to officer (em- jury.” by selecting a jurisdiction the his Government of jurors); prospective magis- added)). If this is true —if a Forte, phasis 806 F.2d 73 Virgin Islands statutory provi- collateral of some violative upon the Feder- depends trate’s that indication Gomez find no challenge under sion. We a Magistrates Act—then al contradict intended in a magistrate use of a the Act Quite way. 636(b)(3) as a by definition section way qualifies certain espe- opinion contrary, the In Court’s objection. jurisdictional its fact that jurisdictional cially to underscore careful claim smacks Williams’ un- Williams, magistrate’s duties jury se- limit a according to decision challenge: vires,” speak, impelled by the obvious with so is “ultra der the lection may magistrate forcing with that a difficulties the duties constitutional respect to jurisdictional plainly accept This is defendant perform. criminal appeal Court, example, raised on con- may be and thus dire. The objection, at voir upon failed assert the “settled though Williams its decision sciously even rests turn to the thus a feder- interpretation We objection trial. avoid an policy to claim is- engenders merits of Williams’ constitutional al statute voir dire authority to conduct interpreta- lack the if a reasonable alternative sues consents. question.” defendant Go- poses no constitutional tion short, we mez, at 2240-41. D. Consent consistently plain with the lan- read Gomez Magis- 636(b)(3) Section long particular Act: so as a guage of the provides trates Act “[a] is “not judicial function delegation duties as additional assigned such and laws with the Constitution inconsistent with Constitution are not inconsistent States,” delegation can- of the United 28 U.S.C. States.” of the United and laws jurisdiction of said to transcend not be of this 636(b)(3). plain language magistracy. federal upon federal clearly confers statute 636(b)(3). § virtually to assume trates has failed to by In this them the duty assigned to judicial any the district court in what sense assignment indicate courts, long as that so district laws of or the the Constitution a violated nor violation unconstitutional is neither when, any in of Gomez, the absence States United federal law. See other of some per part, the court Williams’ objection on (commenting that at 2241 “[t]he 109 S.Ct. supervise magistrate to a federal assign- mitted many on only legal constraint of which this No statute voir dire. ... must be expressly barred ments not federal from prohibits reading, in aware found, literal to the according con dire a defendant conducting voir Constitution.”). Thus, unless Williams F.2d Morrissey, 717 100 In re Article sents. of the absence an establish can that Cf. Cir.1983) delegation of (prohibiting his the selection of judge during III light in bankruptcy appeals to a the Constitution with [or] was “inconsistent 1334(c), explicitly pro States,” of 28 it be cannot the laws of the United delegation). upon a duty scribes of that the conferral said that the boundaries magistrate exceeded federal perceive any constitutional do we Nor 636(b)(3) Fed- of by established section allowing court to difficulty a district with Act. Magistrates eral magistrate in a delegate this function to objection by the defend any of the absence we do express language, light of this right alluded to ant.2 The constitutional delegations that prohibit to read not Gomez defen- right a criminal in was the nor constitutionally prohibited neither are authority conferring by judicial in a capacity III can Article this a in 2. The use of tribunal); Pipe- separa- also Northern hardly conceivable III see said raise non-Article be powers to Co., Supreme has problem: Pipe Court Line 458 Co. v. Marathon tion twice line Constr. per- magistracy (1982) 2858, is a 50, federal held that the 102 S.Ct. 73 U.S. (reaffirming "adjunct” States v. court. See United grounds missible Raddatz, on the Raddatz 2406, 667, 65 100 447 U.S. district Act reserves Federal Mag- (1980) (upholding L.Ed.2d adjudication). "essential attributes” courts against that it violated the claim istrates subordinate duties ministerial and certain felony proceeding to demand dant a judge at voir the courts from matters Article III that often presence of an distract Here, voiced. no such demand was require dire. their immediate undivided misplaced. For is thus Reliance Gomez “additional duties” clause attention. The true, ring it would have claim to Williams’ important role a performs particularly juris a created the case to be respect, permits it the courts this since III requirement that an Article dictional experimentations” “continue innovative cases, irrespective present in all judge be im- magistrates as a means the use of this do not read We consent. administration of prove the efficient as way. recognizing read Gomez We H.R.Rep. No. 94- dockets. courts’ of Article right presence demand the 5, 1609, Cong., reprinted 2d 94th Sess. recognition at voir dire. The judge III 6162, Cong. & Admin.News 1976 U.S.Code way suggests right this no true, Now, certainly it is 6164-65. as by not, rights enjoyed crimi most with Gomez, held in Indeed, defendants, waived.3 nal policy against important must be balanced make long regarded consent to Court has criminal constitutional inter- defendant’s many it comes the difference when all presence judge of a requesting est in rights criminal afforded the constitutional trial, stages critical in his includ- all others, defendants, among including, However, ing jury. of his we the selection counsel, see John right to the assistance admittedly important do not see how this 458, 1019, Zerbst, 58 S.Ct. son per- rule that interest threatened (1938), right to confront 82 L.Ed. defendant, in full consultation with mits a witnesses, Brookhart v. see one’s adverse to this use of a attorney, his to consent 1245, Janis, U.S. 86 S.Ct. Rather, de- magistrate. deference jury, (1966), right and the to trial to us to achieve the fendant’s choice seems ex rel. Adams v. United see If a possible of both worlds. criminal best McCann, defendant, attorney, together with his be- unconstitu If it is not L.Ed. 268 presence judge best lieves that the criminal defendant waive tional for during serves his interests can it important rights, then neither these jury, preserves then Gomez a defendant be unconstitutional Where, magistrate. object to the use of a an Arti right presence of his to waive hand, the defendant is indif- on the other jury. of his judge III at the selection cle magistrate a or a as to whether ferent statutory bar to constitutional or Absent a it makes little judge preside, then should sort, that this we must conclude waiver of oppor- court the deny to the district sense magistrate to a of voir dire assignment to a delegate that function tunity to incon is of the defendant “not on consent delegation sen- trate, if such a particularly of laws the Constitution and sistent with that, therefore, States,” court’s interest in sibly advances the and the United qualifies as an delegation plainly regulation of its docket. a Absent efficient section duty” purposes of that reason to think objection, “additional is no there 636(b)(3). likely injure delegation such a Magis- sense. any palpable defendant in moreover, confident, We are eminently quali- to be have proven trates 636(b)(3) opti- strikes reading of section nature, and matters of this fied to handle between interests mal balance suspect no cause there therefore policies criminal defendant categorically ill-suited they are Magistrates Act. the Federal undergird jury so of a defendant’s at the selection whole, Magistrates Act is the Federal As a consents. long the defendant of as courts to relieve the district intended interpretation. statutory The statute Virgin matter of Islands do prosecuted in the 3. Persons Virgin or in III in the Islands Article the same to a trial before an would mean not have stage. are territory We judge voir dire or the States. at of however, impact dealing, as with the MANSMANN, Judge, Circuit then, section sum, we hold that Concurring. Magistrates Act 636(b)(3) of the delegate voir dire court permits a district reached in the result I concur While duty,” so “additional as an magistrate to a con- affirming Williams’ panel majority objec- expresses no defendant not long as the I do viction, separately because I write ar- accordingly reject Williams’ majority reasoning tion. We rely on em- improperly was his gument reaching this result.

panelled. case of this disposition The ultimate upon the reach turns States, ruling in v. United Court’s III. — U.S. -, 104 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. District argues that next majority reads Gomez on the first it refused when Court erred cases application those having no psychiatric a third order day of trial to a defendant consents which a he was trial. whether his to determine voir dire in presiding examination over However, the can be so trial. that Gomez stand I do not believe competent to therefore, read, and, find it neces narrowly to be exercised of review standard by the reached ruling sary address issues not court’s factual evaluating a district majority. exceedingly competency is on a defendant’s prece- according to established narrow: question majority recognizes, As the “is a dent, competency a determination base, was, juris one raised in Gomez trial court which fact finding of the Federal the terms of Under diction: clearly it is errone- unless set aside Act, appropriate not be what is Green, F.2d selecting jury ous.” United role of Cir.1976). 138, 145 felony matter? The Court (1982), 636(b) so- 28 U.S.C. examined no indi there has been In this of the Fed duties" clause called “additional district court committed that the cation (“The Act”), and con Magistrates Act eral com adjudged Williams clear error when not authorize that this section does cluded separate psychi trial. Two petent to stand jury selec magistrates to conduct federal that Williams concluded Jury atric examinations felony trials.1 voir dire in tion and charges understanding the capable “range was not within assisting in defense. against Congress him and intended duties’ moreover, trial, (quot day Id., at 2242 the first perform.” On Weber, him testimony from Williams ing heard court Mathews (1976)). 549, his conduct demeanor 96 S.Ct. Observing self. rejected his hand, the district first result, the relied reaching this Court In Nothing in examination. for a third motion First, emphasized that factors. on three questioning for provides a basis the record Congress had the Act terms of competency finding. Williams’ this factual magistrates “to con- specifically authorized rejected. accordingly claim and of minor of civil matters duct trials cases” and concluded

criminal authority” grant of “carefully defined IV. implicit with- as an be construed “should consent, felony dire of authority preside the voir at a holding With Williams’ Second, the by the conducted at 2245. properly was 109 S.Ct. jury trial.” jury place The Court’s in detail magistrate. Court discussed United States trial. the criminal in the context of errone- finding clearly is not selection competency is a “critical jury selection there- It noted of sentence will judgement The ous. with voir proceeding,” stage the criminal affirmed. fore be opinion limited dire. The Congress preside over voir whether not consider 1. The Court did of the examination Act. to an magistrates to constitutionally might authorize pending appeal a court ber of cases on direct at the “primary means dire the decision, to be tried enforce a defendant’s time of the Gomez order ethnic, politi- free from racial or by jury Gomez, holding true to the I believe (citing prejudice.” Id. at 2246 Lewis v. cal analysis begin of these cases cannot and 370, 374, States, 146 U.S. S.Ct. United point end at the of consent. (1892), and 36 L.Ed. Ro- Having reached the conclusion that con States, sales-Lopez v. United jurisdictional purposes sent is irrelevant for and that mandates exclusion of the Gomez (1981)). Finally, the Court addressed the felony jury from selection all role of the individual who conducts voir cases, I would next examine the issue of evaluating only spoken dire in “not words brief, In I retroactivity. believe that Go gestures of all but also and attitudes [the] mez should be accorded retroactive effect jury’s [impartiali- participants to ensure the pending appeal. in all cases on direct expressed that a ty],” “serious doubts France, supra, United Unit func- judge district could review the[se] (1st Lopez-Pena, ed States v. 890 F.2d 490 meaningfully.” at 2247. tion[s] Cir.1989).2 factors, light of all of these Court power no concluded that have established, retroactivity in- Once jury selection in over quiry requires becomes whether re- cases. per pending versal se or whether cases majority recognizes The that Gomez may plain be evaluated under the error jurisdictional grounds seeks to rests on but plain doctrine. It is under the error doc- cases, holding to those confine the Court’s trine that a defendant’s consent becomes Gomez, like where the defendant affirma- Appeals The relevant. Court of for the magistrate’s pres- tively objected to the France, Ninth Circuit United States v. reasoning majority, ence. Under the of the supra, concluded that the presence objects where a defendant to the Gomez, by precluding harmless error 636(b) magistrate, of the Act with- analysis, per had articulated se rule of authority pre- holds from applicable reversal to all not final cases Yet, where a defendant fails to ob- side. per was decided. This se rule ject affirmatively pres- or consents to apply regardless of the would defendant’s magistrate, delegation ence of the consent. qualifies “plainly as an ‘addi- Appeals The Court of for the First Cir- duty’ purposes section tional Lopez-Pena, cuit in su- United States 636(b)(3).” I Majority Opinion at 311. do however, pra, rejected any per notion of a “plain” that this conclusion is or not believe applied plain analysis. error se rule and can confer where consent it, the court found no On the facts before reasoning it. The withholds plain error: support majori- opinion fails to ty’s conclusion. magistrate’s preliminary comments standard, jury were and defen- approach is that I believe that the better (then now) objection dants voiced no or Appeals for the adopted by the Court of said—or not any portion of what was France, Ninth States v. Circuit United Questions were ad- said—in that matter. (9th Cir.1989), 223 and of the 886 F.2d prepared from a dressed venire Mang dissent in Sun United States chosen, the was form. Once (2d Cir.1989). F.2d 1537 Wong, 884 magistrate gave judge Rubio, F.Supp. also United States v. — —not aught instructions. From (D.Del.1989). start-of-trial majority ap- While the empanelment was scru- convenient, appears, that proach disposing of a num- Osser, Cir.1987), discussing F.2d and United States v. of cases 2. We have decided a number cases, too, (3d Cir.1989). effect of substantive rather than favor re- the retroactive procedural These rulings involving statutory interpre- troactivity. Owens, See, (3d Diggs v. 833 F.2d 439 tation. might this case be suggests how jury was not taint- and the pulously fair light in Gomez: analyzed way. any ed in conclusion error under sideration Id. at 498. Id. cating Gomez. determine result. question of case now before error own clusions mez plies prejudice tions, the trial nor remand verdict Our Most claimed error [W]e direct Thame, at 496. F.2d 200 in this appellants precedent, we analysis to those can never be harmless decision United hold that the Gomez especially, neither All that retroactively to nonfinal regarding appeal. has been “plain of a case must be denied. that a whether, flowing from we The court whether the way: A is, plain have been unable specifically addressed the remains, my error” us would particular constitutional Cir.1988), But went jury, their motions involving such an error accuracy impeached. may apply the error consistent with summarized its pending standard of review. application in this case the States v. cases Supreme Court’s unremarked.... analysis yield the same precludes con- magistrate’s doctrine integrity cases pending dispositive. view, Inasmuch to show Thame, convic- in guilty impli- plain is to con- our Go- ap- trate where there was Id. reversed. case concluded Thus, major that a less result if the conviction is ring and ment that it was reasonable ciently do not believe constitutional claim determination man Nevertheless, concluding and harmless ror.” United States do not believe that fundamental certainly harmless, The constitutional involving jury selection beyond contemporaneous-objection “threatens to render [35], standard in the simply minor to be harmless that a makes dissenting).... [36], 108 S.Ct. sufficiently minor to be harm- it does doubt, we also do not believe (1988)(Blackmun, a reasonable context because fairness miscarriage collapses the error doctrines applies to the it easier to not follow that is at issue no the error was suffi- of constitutional nature of requires reversal. objection error was Robinson, doubt, we also [Although not conclude that 864, 871, 99 by magis- meaningless plain sufficiently justice may never plain J., beyond a reversed. into one must be require- concur- time Chap- every error error error ^[485] will we er- role of a court In our Circuit the under- analysis plain error We concluded analysis is: taking plain error drew a distinc- precluded. We first is not error: plain case-by-case harmless on a basis to such tion between look [T]o error, as the factors obviousness not the for error is The test harmless protected significance the interest The plain error.... as the test for same violated, the by the rule that serious- allows convic- error doctrine harmless particular in the ness of the error despite properly preserved stand tions to reputation judicial proceedings and the in the ex- error claims of constitutional if uncorrected—all with the error stands review- where the ceptional circumstance injus- eye avoiding manifest toward that the error was ing can court conclude tice. doubt. beyond a reasonable harmless California, 386 U.S. Chapman v. 205. [87 Id. at 705] consideration, the In the ease now under allows convictions error doctrine plain obvious; prior not claimed was error absence to be reversed even practice it was common of error where properly preserved claims many Virgin Islands and in the trates reviewing can conclude to conduct voir dire jurisdictions requires. fundamental so fairness (Indeed, majority as the felony cases. out, Virgin Islands defendants points Then, importantly for our Id. at 207. most of Article III benefit not even have the following do statement purposes, we made the judges since the judges presiding at trial

sitting empowered there are under Article

I.) Despite challenges, prac- occasional great majority upheld

tice was in the protected by the interest

cases. While (the right

rule of a defendant to have voir by person

dire conducted with preside) important, there is not the

slightest hint here that the defendant ex-

pressed having discontent at any prejudice

trate or that resulted. injustice

There has been no manifest reputation judicial proceedings

intact. foregoing I

For all of the reasons concur

in the result reached in this matter but requires a different

believe

analysis than that undertaken the ma-

jority. DOE, Loe, Mary Roe and Susan

Joan

their own behalf and on behalf of all situated, similarly Appellants,

others BUTLER,

The CITY OF PENNSYLVA-

NIA, Schontz, Mayor and Richard J. Butler, City Pennsylvania.

No. 88-3691. Appeals,

United States Court

Third Circuit.

Argued June 1989.

Decided Dec. 1989.

Case Details

Case Name: Government of the Virgin Islands v. Raymond Williams

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Dec 27, 1989

Citation: 892 F.2d 305

Docket Number: 89-3177

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.