From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Martinez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 9, 1991
928 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1991)

Summary

vacating because jury selection was conducted by a magistrate judge

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Taman

Opinion

No. 87-1094.

Argued and Submitted April 4, 1988.

Opinion August 23, 1989. Opinion Vacated April 9, 1991. Order April 9, 1991.

Robert Martinez. Milan. Mich., pro se.

John F. Peyton, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; Harold M. Fong, District Judge.

Before WALLACE, REINHARDT and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

Jury selection in this case was conducted by a magistrate, rather than a district judge. Accordingly, the conviction is REVERSED. Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 109 S.Ct. 2237, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989); United States v. France, 886 F.2d 223 (9th Cir. 1989), affirmed without opinion by an equally divided Court, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 805, 112 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (per curiam). Our previous opinion in this case, United States v. Martinez, 883 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1989), is vacated.


Summaries of

United States v. Martinez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 9, 1991
928 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1991)

vacating because jury selection was conducted by a magistrate judge

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Taman

distinguishing right to testify from other fundamental rights

Summary of this case from Gulbrandson v. Schriro
Case details for

United States v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROBERT MARTINEZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 9, 1991

Citations

928 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1991)

Citing Cases

United States v. Arriaga

In United States v. Martinez, 883 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1989), vacated on other grounds, 928 F.2d 1470 (9th…

Tachibana v. State

The demand rule is justified in two different ways. Either the right to testify is not viewed by these courts…