Masters have conducted delinquency hearings in juvenile court for decades. The competency and image problems related to the use of these officials have been addressed by most States' requirements that masters be attorneys before they can function in a judicial capacity. However, problems arise when masters preside at the adjudicatory hearing or trial, because they usually can only make recommendations that are then submitted to judges for verdicts. Moreover, judges can and do reverse not- guilty findings without having attended the trial or examined the evidence first-hand. The United States Supreme Court upheld this process in its 1978 decision in Swisher v. Brady. However, legislatures and appellate courts must recognize and resolve the constitutional problems inherent in the trial-by-master system, because juvenile court delinquency adjudications have assumed tremendous importance within the last decade. It is time to reexamine the Swisher decision, a crucial precedent that was wrongly decided. To address this problem, several specific solutions are recommended for consideration. Tables and footnotes