The Misuse of Magistrate Judges in Federal Criminal Proceedings: A Look at the Non-ministerial Nature of Sentencings

Abstract

The Constitution is the foundation of the American government and the American sys tem of justice. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the Constitution in such a way that its mandates are followed. From time to time courts have found it necessary to limit consensual, agreed-upon acts of litigants when such acts conflict with constitutional strictures. Such was the situation faced by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Johnston, 258 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2001), where the court had to consider whether, with the consent of both parties, the hearing and issuance of a final order by a federal magistrate in a habeas corpus proceeding stemming from a federal felony prosecution violated Article III of the Constitution. The facts surrounding the case are quite simple. Edward Johnston was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas of possession with intent to distribute several controlled substances and sentenced to 135 months in prison. Following the affirmance of his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, he filed a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Both Johnston and the government consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, pur suant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), which provides that "upon the consent of the parties, a ... United States magistrate ... may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exer cise such jurisdiction by the district court or courts he serves." Following the magis trate's denial of the 2255 motion on the merits, Johnston appealed, raising the question of whether the magistrate judge was lawfully empowered to hear 2255 motions stem ming from a felony prosecution. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the magis trate's denial of the 2255 motion on the grounds that permitting a magistrate to rule on such motions in matters involving felony prosecutions violated Article III of the Constitution. United States v. Johnston, 258 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2001). In a well-reasoned opinion, Judge DeMoss adopted the two-step analysis set forth in United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261, 264 (5th Cir. 1997) for considering whether the parties consent to have a magistrate consider a 2255 petition was appropriate. As framed by the court, the questions that needed to be addressed were: