In order to ensure the selection and retention of qualified persons as magistrates, the bill would empower the Judicial Conference of the United States to promulgate procedures and establish standards to be used by the courts in selecting magistrates and in considering questions of removal or retention in office. App. A, Sec. 3. In addition, bar membership requirements are expanded to mandate, in general, that no magistrate can be appointed without having been a member for five years of one or more bars of the highest state courts. This requirement is designed to prevent the appointment of those who have not acquired the necessary legal seasoning. These standards would be used by the judicial council in each circuit to compile a certified list of qualified magistrates. The district courts would choose from this list. It is not anticipated that a candidate will have to be on the certification list at the time a vacancy occurs. He or she will only have to achieve certified status prior to appointment. Further, it is anticipated that the Judicial Conference will provide sufficient flexibility in its certification procedures, so they do not work a hardship on the substantial number of part-time magistrates. These magistrates receive little annual compensation and perform very limited functions. B. Criminal Jurisdiction Magistrates presently have jurisdiction to try persons accused of “minor offenses"; i.c.. misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment for not more than offenses thought to be "inappropriate" for trial by magistrate (e.g., violations of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act or voting offenses). At present, however, a defendant cannot elect to have his case tried before a jury in magistrate court. He can specify the district court, where he may also have a right to a jury trial. The proposed bill would alter the magistrate's criminal jurisdiction in the following principal respects: 1. The $1,000 fine ceiling on magistrate jurisdiction would be removed and the current exemption of certain offenses would be deleted. As a result, magistrates could try all federal misdemeanors, if the district court and the parties (in more serious misdemeanor cases) concur. App. A. Sec. 5. 2. A defendant charged with a petty misdemeanor offense (i.e., an offense involving no more than a six month jail sentence and/or a fine of up to $500) would no longer be allowed to elect a trial in the district court but would be tried by a magistrate without a jury. 3. In nonpetty misdemeanor offenses (i.e., cases with from six to twelve months imprisonment at issue and/or fines above $500) the government and the defendant could consent to trial before a full-time magistrate, if the district court concurs.* The trial could be held with or without a jury. A defendant's decision to be tried by a magistrate would have to be made with the advice of counsel. App. A, Sec. 5. 4. The proposed expansions of the criminal jurisdiction of magistrates should have an appreciable impact in reducing the criminal dockets of the district courts and, as a consequence, in affording speedier and less costly justice to criminal defendants. Although the precise magnitude of this impact is impossible to forecast, it should be substantial since several misdemeanors not now triable by magistrates account for a large portion of district court caseloads (e.g., possession of Controlled Dangerous Substances). C. Civil Jurisdiction Magistrates presently have no explicit authorization to finally decide civil cases. However, under 28 U.S.C. 636(b) district court judges may designate magistrates to fulfill certain pretrial functions, conduct hearings, and serve as special masters. The proposed bill would explicitly give magistrates case-dispositive jurisdiction over all civil actions if the district court and the parties concur. It would provide an appeal of right to the district court and further discretionary review by the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. More particularly, the bill specifies that: 1. Full-time magistrates specially designated by the district court may conduct civil jury or nonjury trials if the parties consent. App. A, Sec. 2. These cases span the entire spectrum of economic interests. Depending upon the degree to which litigants are willing to have their cases determined by magistrates, the bill could have a very substantial impact on the civil case loads of the district courts. Given the dual consent required by the district court and the parties, it is not possible to forecast accurately the precise extent of this impact. 2. Once a magistrate entered a judgment, appeal to the district court by right would be permitted with respect to all factual and legal issues. App. A, Sec. 2. The standard of review would be the same as that the court of appeals would employ if the case were litigated initially in the district court. 3. Further appellate review would be confined to discretionary review of matters of law decided by the district court. App. A, Sec. 2. In the interest of judicial economy no additional factual review is felt necessary or desirable. In many cases the administrative findings of fact will already have been reviewed twice-first by the magistrate and again by the district court. The court of appeals would grant or deny leave to appeal in much the same way it acts on a petition for allowance of appeal in some bankruptcy cases. Refusal to grant such leave would not be reviewable by the Supreme Court. Only court-of-appeals determinations. of law, made after the granting of leave to appeal, would be so reviewable. The court might promulgate a rule designating certain cases for magistrate determination. 95TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 7493 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 26, 1977 Mr. RODINO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To improve access to the Federal courts by enlarging the civil and criminal jurisdiction of United States magistrates, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That this Act may be cited as the "Magistrate Act of 1977." 4 SEC. 2. Section 636 of title 28, United States Code, is 5 amended: 6 7 8 (a) by deleting the word "and" at the end of sub section (a) (2); (b) by deleting the period at the end of subsection (a) (3) and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 བ 8 9 10 2 (c) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new paragraph: "(4) the power to hear and determine civil actions under subsection (c) of this section in conformity with and subject to the limitations of that subsection."; (d) by redesignating subsections (c) through (e) as subsections (d) through (f), respectively; (e) by adding after subsection (b) the following new subsection: "(c) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the con11 trary "(1) when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the court or courts he serves, and under such conditions as may be imposed by the terms of the special designation, any United States magistrate shall have jurisdiction to review, hear, or otherwise determine with the consent of the parties any nonjury or jury civil matter. 66 “(2) upon entry of a judgment by the magistrate in an action reviewed, heard or determined pursuant to subsection (c) (1) of this section, an aggrieved party may appeal by right on the record to the district court for the district where the action was reviewed, heard or determined. The district court shall have jurisdiction of the appeal and may affirm, reverse or modify the 3 1 judgment, or may remand the case to the magistrate for 2 3 further proceedings. Its review shall be under the standard that would be employed by the United States 4 court of appeals, if the action were reviewed, heard or determined in the district court in the first instance. "(3) upon petition for leave to appeal by a party stating specific objections to a judgment of the district court made pursuant to subsection (c) (2) of this section, the appropriate United States court of appeals may review the judgment. Such review shall be limited to questions of law: Provided, That the court of appeals review any action where it appears from the petition for leave to appeal that any prejudicial error of law has been committed. "(4) in cases in which the court of appeals has reviewed a judgment of the district court under subsection (c) (3) of this section, review of the judgment of the court of appeals may be sought in the Supreme Court of the United States in accordance with section 1254 of this title."; and (f) by deleting the words "United States Code" in subsection (d), as redesignated, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "or section 2072 of this title, as the case may be❞. 4 1 SEC. 3. Section 631 of title 28, United States Code, is 2 amended: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (a) by deleting the first sentence of subsection (a) and inserting the following in lieu thereof: "Pursuant to the standards and procedures promulgated by the conference, the council of each circuit shall certify a list of persons deemed qualified to serve as United States magistrates. The judges of each United States district court and of the district court of the Virgin Islands shall appoint United States magistrates from the list certified by the council in such numbers and to serve in such locations within the judicial district as the conference may determine under this chapter. Provided, however, 14 That such standards and procedures shall be promulgated no later than April 30, 1978. And provided further, That from the date of enactment of this amending provision to the promulgation of such standards and procedures, or April 30, 1978, whichever is earlier, no full or part-time magistrate shall be appointed to a new term. Full or part-time magistrates whose terms 231 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 222 expire during this period may be reappointed to serve for an additional period not to exceed one year. Pro vided, also, That nothing in this subsection shall be con strued as affecting removal procedures specified in sub section (h) of this section."; |