United States v. Raddatz (1979)
- Docket
- 79-8
- Decided
- 1979-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the statute allowing the district court to decide a suppression motion based on a record and finding of facts developed by a magistrate judge violate the Constitution? Conclusion: No. Chief Justice Warren Burger, in a 5-4 decision, wrote the majority opinion reversing the Seventh Circuit. The Supreme Court held that the FMA did not did not require the district court to independently review disputed testimony. Also, the FMA did not violate the Constitution. Justice Harry A. Blackmun concurred, writing that the statute in question does not threaten judicial power or independence in judicial decision making. Justice Lewis F. Powell wrote a partial dissent, stating that a district court must rehear evidence when credibility is at issue. Justice Potter Stewart dissented, writing that the FMA clearly requires a district court to rehear evidence when a party objects to a magistrate’s recommendation. Justices William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall joined in the dissent. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a separate dissent, expressing that use of the the FMA was impermissible in this case under the Fifth Amendment and Article III.