M. Paul v. PA PUC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “consent is of paramount importance” in determining the duties the district court could delegate to a magistrate judge
• remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on whether the defendant personally consented to a magistrate judge conducting voir dire in a felony criminal proceeding
• remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on whether the defendant personally consented to a magistrate judge con- ducting voir dire in a felony criminal proceeding
• “Because [the defendant] made no objection to the magistrate judge’s conducting of voir dire, we review the district court’s delegation of jury selection to the magistrate judge only for plain error.”
• “In order for a magistrate judge to conduct jury voir dire in a felony criminal proceeding, a defendant must give consent, or in other words, a defendant must waive the right to have an Article III judge conduct voir dire.”
• requiring personal and explicit consent from the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).