Understanding the American Court System - Research Paper Example

Introduction: The and the federal government have a judicial system which is responsible for the interpretation and application of laws. The court system in United States is divided under two separate administrative systems, namely the state and the federal system. The courts operate independently, and they are free from the influences of the legislature and the executive arms of government. This dual structure of the American court system was inherited from their colonial masters. By the period in which the constitution of the US was created, that is in 1789, each of the thirteen colonies had their own court system, which was a reflection of the English model (Thomas, 2008). On this basis, the Federal and the State courts system grew side by side, with each exercising jurisdiction over some areas, and managing to have a concurrent jurisdiction in some areas. It is important to denote that cases brought forth before these courts are always different in nature, and contain different topics. These courts also solve these problems differently, depending on the judge’s interpretation of the law (Falk, 2010). An example of a case that was solved differently by the various courts is the Sekhar vs. United States. This case began from the Federal district courts, all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Seminal Facts of the Case: The comptroller of the State of New York is the only trustee of the common retirement fund. This is a pension fund for the employee of the state and local government in the state of New York. On this basis, the States comptroller has the authority to approve the various investments for the funds. Before making these decisions, the General Counsel always advices the comptroller on the viability of the investments (Stuntz, 2011). In the periods of 2008, to 2009, the comptroller wanted to invest the funds in a company referred to as FA Technology Ventures. Had the comptroller invested these funds in this company, FA Technology Ventures would have gotten revenue of 7.6 million dollars. This was in terms of fees charged to the state for purposes of using their services. However, the General Counsel advised the comptroller against investing the funds in FA Technology Ventures (Falk, 2010). This is because the office of the Attorney General was investigating the company of mismanaging a similar fund. Based on this advice from the General Counsel, the comptroller decided not to invest in FA Technology Ventures. On 17th of November, four days after the comptroller made his decision, the General Counsel received anonymous emails that threatened to make open his extra-marital affairs (Falk, 2010). That is if he did not change his opinion and recommend to the comptroller that he continues with his investments at the FA Technology Ventures. These emails continued over the next few days, and law enforcement officers convinced the General Counsel to seek more time with the emailer (Stuntz, 2011). The FBI were then able to identify the origin of the emails, to the home of Giridhar Sekha, who was the managing director of FA Technology. Sekhar confessed to sending these threatening email messages. The Laws Violated: The laws under violation were the 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), the Hobbs Act, and the 18 U.S.C. § 875(d). The Hobbs Act is a law that was passed in 1946, and it outlaws extortion that involves inter-state commerce. This law was developed from the penal codes of New York, and its intention was to fight organized crime. In making their rulings, the courts in United States usually use the Hobbs Act to provide a definition of property (Stuntz, 2011). In this case, the issue under consideration was whether a recommendation by the attorney general can be considered as property, and on this basis, it can be a subject of extortion. In this case, the government argued that the Hobbs Act recognizes both tangible and non-tangible assets, as long as they have an economic value. On this note, an advice of the Attorney General to the comptroller is a non-tangible property that has an economic value. On this note, Sekhar is guilty of extortion and should be punished by the law. Sekhar on the other hand argues that the court should take the definition of a property as ruled in Scheidler against National organization of women. Under this definition, the courts ruled that the Hobbs Act defines property as an asset with an economic value, that can be transferred, sold, or exercised, and it can be deprived or acquired. The Hobbs Act criminalizes extortion, and it defines extortion as a method of obtaining property from another person, with his consent, but by using wrong methods such as use of force, intimidation, and violence (Stuntz, 2011). The penalty of violating the Hobbs Act is an imprisonment of not more than 20 years, and a fine as imposed by the judges, and under the title of this law. Another law violated is the 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). This law makes it illegal to delay, or obstruct commerce through extortion, robbery, or through threats of physical bodily harm (Stuntz, 2011). A person, who violates this law, can be imprisoned for a period of not more than 20 years, or issued a fine as imposed by the courts. Or he can pay the fine, as well as jailed by the courts. 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) is also another law violated. This law denotes that anybody who commits extortion, or sends any threatening messages that compromise inter-national or interstate commerce, will receive an imprisonment of not more than 2 years, and a fine shall be imposed as determined by the courts (Stuntz, 2011). Where the Case was heard, in the State or the Federal Court System? This case was heard in a Federal court system, because the issues involved were on the Federal law. The Hobbs Act is a federal law, and there was a need of the courts to interpret this law, in relation to the above case. The case was first head at the US District Court, in charge of the Northern District of New York. The District courts have the responsibility of hearing cases that deal with the interpretation of the constitution, and its violation. These courts also have the responsibility of hearing cases which directly involve the federal and the state governments. This case involved the commerce of a state government of New York, and the interpretation of a federal law (Falk, 2010). On this note, this case was under the jurisdiction of the district court. The case was later on appealed to the US second circuit, court of appeals. These courts have the mandate and jurisdiction of hearing appeals from the lower courts. On this basis, this district appeals circuit had jurisdiction over the case. Another court in which this case was heard was in the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme court has the final jurisdiction on all cases that are brought before it. This court is tasked with the role of reviewing the various decisions made by the federal court of appeals. It can also hear cases from state governments that involve the interpretation of the constitution (Stuntz, 2011). This case was to be heard in the Supreme Court, because it emanated from the Federal court of appeals, and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on the decisions arrived at by the Federal courts of appeal. Summary of the outcome of the case: In the district court, the federal jury convicted Mr. Sekhar for extortion by threatening to embarrass a state official into approving a business contract to his own benefit. However, the courts would have the responsibility of determining the meaning of property under federal law, and in accordance to the Hobbs act. In their conviction, the district court denoted that the advise provided by the Attorney General is a intangible property, and on this note, Sekhar is guilty of extortion. However, Sekhar appealed against this decision on the circuit appeals court. The circuit appeals court confirmed the decision of the district court and upheld the sentence. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the court managed to quash the sentence passed by the appeals court, denoting that extortion did not occur. In their decision, the Supreme Court denoted that the principles of common law in regard to extortion denoted that a property must be transferrable. This Hobbs act also concurs with this definition, denoting that a property must be able to be transferred from one party to another. Based on this definition, the advice from the general counsel cannot qualify as property (Falk, 2010). Whether the outcome of the case was justified: In my own opinion, the outcome of the case was justified. This is because a recommendation cannot be transferred, and on this note, a recommendation does not satisfy the definition of a property as established by the Hobbs Act. Conclusion: In conclusion, the American court system is dual in nature. That is, there are courts which are affiliated with the Federal government and courts which are affiliated with the state governments. These courts are always independent from the influences of the executive and the legislature. On this basis, their decisions are always reliable, ensuring that there is a fair administration of justice. The Sekhar vs. the United States is a case that effectively depicts the manner in which the federal court system works. This is shown in the manner in which Sekhar used the various courts to seek justice. References: Falk, G. (2010). The American criminal justice system: how it works, how it doesnt , and how to fix it. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger. Stuntz, W. J. (2011). The collapse of American criminal justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Thomas, G. C. (2008). The Supreme Court on trial how the American justice system sacrifices innocent defendants. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Read More