Download file to see previous pages...
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.
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
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The current changes in the policy of sentencing, jurisdiction, and procedure reveal disagreements about the importance of the juvenile justice system. Majority of juvenile justice theorists and policymakers understand the purposeful union of juvenile courts with the adult criminal justice system but oppose the possibility of removing the juvenile courts and sentencing all kinds of criminals in criminal court.
One need look no further than our own past 19th century in order to see many instances in which racial prejudice decided a case long before the defendant had an ample/reasonable opportunity to defend himself/herself against such charges. Likewise, when one thinks of sixteenth century Massachusetts, one of the first things that come to mind is the Salem Witch Trials.
The scope and the breadth of national and state laws overlap, but mostly, the court system exist completely independent of each other. Each state government is authorized to create its own local regulations for residents. Federal courts hear civil and criminal cases that involve federal and constitutional law, special subject matters like federal tax or bankruptcy.
United States Court System Research
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).
Which Of The Protections Available To Criminal Offenders Through The Bill Of Rights Do Not Currently Apply To The States? ‘Bill of Rights’ is the combined name which has been provided to the primary ‘Ten Amendments’ to the US. The main intention of framing the Bill Of Rights is to ensure that rights of the individuals in the community could be safeguarded.
Justice demands that Jones is charged before a federal court, where maximum sentences are available (Wold, 2004). The police department however, in view of his cooperation, recommends that Jones’ February 6, 2005 cocaine possession case is filed in the District Court, unlike the rest of Sedgwick County where people found to be possessing small amounts of illegal drugs in Wichita were no longer sent to jail.
Any defendant or a litigant who did not receive a favorable decision from the trial court can appeal the verdict to a federal court of appeals for its review. If the litigant is found guilty of some or all the charges then they have the legal right to file a petition for reviewing the decision to at least one level of appellate court.
The character trait of an individual is not admissible if it is trying to prove conformity with the occasion or case (Rothstein, 2000). An example is in the case of Wiggins v. State, 778 S.W.2d 877, 893 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 1989 pet. ref’d where
The mandate of the court lies in solving constitutional cases which may have been referred from lower level courts (Us Courts, 2014).
The sole responsibility of any court is the interpretation of the law. In the case of United States vs. Edith Schlain Windsor,
The federal courts hear cases that the U.S. Constitution places under its jurisdiction. On the other hand, the state courts determine the cases that touch on the individual state constitution or the cases that the U.S. Constitution does not give
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Research Paper on topic Understanding the Court System for FREE!