United States Court System - Research Paper Example

? United s Court System Research Paper of The American court system is usually called an ‘adversarial system’ because justice can be attained when lawyers stand for competing legal groups—the defense and the prosecution—vying in court to establish the facts and come up with the most fair decision. The adversarial system is rooted in the doctrine of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ (May et al., 2007, 159). The U.S. court system is clearly different from the inquisitorial system adopted in most European and Latin American nations, where the defendant is presumed guilty and should establish his/her innocence to the court (Neubauer & Fradella, 2010, 53). In spite of the belief that the adversarial system is a contest between two rivals, in reality a complex system of collaboration between judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers is usually present. In the U.S. court system, members of the courtroom work team create guidelines about how specific kinds of cases must be dealt with and what type of petitions is legitimate for particular kinds of offenses (May et al., 2007, 159). At present, the United States implements a dual system of state and federal courts that often work autonomously, even though state cases are often petitioned to the federal courts. The dual court system developed from the belief of the founding fathers that every state has to have substantial judicial sovereignty and legislative power (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2012, 105). The federal court system emerged after the nation gained its independence from England. The existing federal court system emerged as a concession between the founding fathers who preferred a powerful federal government and those who supported the rights of the states with a restricted federal government. At present, there are several independent court systems in the United States. Even though some American Indian communities and the military have their own court systems, the general U.S. court systems are the state court systems and the federal court systems (May et al., 2007, 161-162). Figure 1. Structure of the federal court system (May et al., 2007, 162) Even though state court systems emerged with almost no interaction with other states’ court systems, the state court systems that ultimately progressed noticeably resemble one another in structure and organization. Almost all court systems at present are structured in a hierarchical way (Cole et al., 2012, 363). The first major characteristic to remember when looking at state court systems is the difference between courts with appellate jurisdiction and courts with original jurisdiction. Because cases come from them, trial courts are usually called ‘courts of limited jurisdiction’. These courts handle cases of misconduct or less serious offenses, cases of small claims, family disputes, and traffic disobedience. These courts seldom conduct jury trials and rely greatly on the judge for the final resolution (Neubauer & Fradella, 2010, 95). Courts of general jurisdiction handle both felonies and misconduct cases and function as a round-table for major civil actions. Courts of general jurisdiction, in numerous states, facilitate the first appellate level and give the accused who came from a court of limited jurisdictions the opportunity to open up another trial. These courts employ prosecutors, defense attorneys, witnesses, juries, and all the other players usually connected to American courtrooms (Walston-Dunham, 2008, 147). These courts are more formal than courts of limited jurisdiction. They operate under the adversarial framework. The intermediate appellate court level—court of appeals-- is the subsequent level in state court systems. The main task of these courts is to evaluate petitions that came from resolutions given in the courts of general jurisdiction. The topmost court level in every state system is the court of last resort—the Supreme Court (Cole et al., 2012, 364-365). A petition can progress no further after the Supreme Court gives its resolution concerning the petition. When an appellate court examines a resolution of a lower court, it does not carry out another trial but evaluate the document of the lower-court trial to make sure that it was performed legally and fairly. In certain instances, these courts give lawyers from both parties the opportunity to provide concise verbal arguments and usually take into consideration other documents submitted by both parties (Cole et al., 2012, 364-365). Almost all states usually call for a routine assessment of sentences of life imprisonment or capital punishment by the court of last resort. Nearly all decisions supported by the appellate court; but if an appellate court thinks that a petition is legally sound, it can annul and withhold the case. Defendants that are dissatisfied with a verdict by an appellate court may try a petition to the Supreme Court; nevertheless, this petition should be derived from a suspected violation of the rights of the defendants protected by the U.S. Constitution or the federal law (Walston-Dunham, 2008, 39). Due to increasing number of cases in the 1980s, several ingenious strategies were created to lessen the caseloads of state courts in an effort to enhance the efficiency of the criminal justice system. These innovative procedures of handling criminal cases reflect the Native American customary methods of resolving conflicts where they apply techniques like elders’ councils and peacemaking (May et al., 2007, 165). One of the present and more extensively exercised court approaches is dispute resolution centers, where professional arbitrators are tasked to resolve minor offense cases, disagreements between landlords and tenants, cases of child custody and divorce, and minor civil disagreements. These decisions occur at the initial phases of the criminal justice procedure to prevent the considerable expense that pretrial preparations require. Generally, a defendant or complainant who is discontented with the result of the arbitration may pursue the case further without consequence (May et al., 2007, 165). Community courts, on the other hand, focus on neighborhood disputes and apply partnerships and investigative techniques within the criminal justice system setting to tackle juvenile cases and nuisance cases, such as unruly behavior and prostitution (Neubauer & Fradella, 2010, 107). Equally, family courts are tasked to address the complex and diverse needs of distressed families via an integrated court framework. Within this framework, only one judge tackles all of the issues confronting a family, such as domestic violence, custody and divorce matters, and child abuse. The advantages of such specific courts involve more dedicated and knowledgeable personnel and judges, harmonization of required social services, and more competent management of cases (Neubauer & Fradella, 2010, 107). The federal court system was established in the U.S. Constitution. According to Article 3, there should be a single supreme court and numerous lower courts; it also mandates that these courts are to possess authority over cases occurring under federal law, agreements, and the Constitution. Federal courts also have the power to resolve state disputes and make decisions when one side in a conflict is a state (May et al., 2007, 166). Throughout their development, the federal courts were structured based on states and, as a proof to the influence of the rights of states in the judicial system, judgments requisite in a particular federal court are not requisite in another except if the U.S. Supreme Court has decided on subject matter under consideration. The existing federal court system has emerged through several congressional directives that have broadened the federal court system to satisfy its diverse and complex needs (May et al., 2007, 166). The 1968 Magistrate’s Act, the 1925 Judiciary Act, and the 1789 Judiciary Act all served major functions in the structuring of the federal court system in the contemporary period (Walston-Dunham, 2008, 39). *image taken from Google pictures As shown in the diagram above, the United States district courts occupy the lowest position in the federal court system. These U.S. district courts have authority to handle both criminal and civil federal cases. They also have special authority over courts where every case of bankruptcy should be pursued (Neubauer & Fradella, 2010, 59). In addition, two specialized trial courts have national authority over cases relating to customs and international trade—the Court of International Trade—and over disagreements over federal agreements and appeals for financial reparations against the federal government—the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Walston-Dunham, 2008, 36). The U.S. Courts of Appeals is the next phase in the federal court system. The U.S. district courts are arranged into regional circuits, all of which have a U.S. court of appeals. These courts handle petitions originating from the district courts positioned in their circuit, together with petitions from resolutions of federal administrative units. Furthermore, the U.S. Court of Appeals has national authority to handle petitions in special cases, such as cases resolved by the Court of Federal Claims and the Court of International Trade, and patent laws (May et al., 2007, 167-168). These courts have binding authority over the resolutions of the district courts within their circuits, which implies they are obliged to handle any petition originating from a district court within their circuit (May et al., 2007, 168). The U.S. Supreme Court is located at the uppermost of the federal court system. This court is made up of the associate justices and the Chief Justice. Within specific rules laid out by the Congress, the Supreme Court possesses the authority to conduct judicial review that gives its constituents the power to annul laws, lower-court verdicts, and executive resolutions that are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution (May et al., 2007, 168). This authority was not clearly guaranteed in the Constitution. It developed from the decision of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) where the power of the Court as the definitive interpreter of the Constitution was established (May et al., 2007, 168). The Supreme Court handles only a small number of the cases it is requested to resolve annually. Such cases may commence in the state or federal courts, and they normally concern major issues about the federal law or Constitution. When the Court agrees to handle a case, it releases a writ of certiorari requiring the lower court to submit its documents for evaluation (Cole et al., 2012, 101). Resolutions by the Supreme Court are seldom undisputed; rather, a resolution is invalidated if most of the justices consent to annul that resolution. One justice brings together a majority judgment that becomes the Court’s decision; the justices who conform to the majority judgment may put in writing approving thoughts, whereas justices who disagree with the judgment may put in writing opposing thoughts, which usually open up new likelihoods for successful petitions of upcoming cases (Walston-Dunham, 2008, 39). In summary, the U.S. court system is partitioned into two independent units, the state and the federal, each of which is autonomous from the legislature and the executive. This dual court system was carried over from the colonial age. By the time the American Constitution had originally authorized the formation of a federal judiciary, all of the colonies by that time had their own complete court system derived from the English paradigm. Hence, the state and the federal systems developed simultaneously. Moreover, the American legal system adopts the adversarial model, which implies that integral to every court action, irrespective of the court, is the assumption that all involved individuals and/or groups in a case should have the same chance of pursuing their case. References Cole, G., Smith, C., & DeJong, C. (2012). The American System of Criminal Justice. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. May, D.C. et al. (2007). Corrections and the Criminal Justice System. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Neubauer, D. & Fradella, H. (2010). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Walston-Dunham, B. (2008). Introduction to Law. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Read More