New Government of Puerto Rico in Setting its Judiciary System - Research Paper Example

New Government of Puerto Rico It has been held that "any probe into Puerto Rico's standing must begin with the Constitution of the United States, as well as numerous Supreme Court and lower court decisions."Almost immediately after Puerto Rico was surrendered to the United States, Puerto Rico's political position was defined by a series of revolutionary decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court in what are jointly known as The Insular Cases. From 1901 - 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court in a sequence of opinions held that the Constitution protracted ex propiovigore to the territories. However, the Court in these cases also created the doctrine of territorial amalgamation. Under the same, the Constitution only applied entirely in incorporated territories, whereas it only applied somewhat in the new unincorporated territories. Although other cases trailed, strictly speaking the Insular Cases are the original six views issued concerning acquired territories as a result of the 1898 Treaty of Paris (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009) Article Three of the United States Constitution founds the judicial branch of the federal government. This article was particularly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through Federal Law, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. After that date, judges allotted to the Puerto Rico federal district court have been Article III judges fixed under the Constitution of the United States (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009). The courts serve as the setting where disputes are then settled and justice is administered. With respect to criminal justice, there are a number of serious people in any court setting. These critical people are stated as the courtroom work group and consist of both professional and non-professional persons. These include the judge, prosecutor, and the defense attorney. The judge, or magistrate, is an individual, elected or appointed, who is erudite in the law, and whose function is to empirically administer the legal proceedings and offer a final decision to organize of a case. In the U.S. and in a rising number of nations, guilt or innocence is decided through the accusatorial system. In this system, two parties will both give their version of events and argue their case before the court (at times before a judge/panel of judges, sometimes before a jury). The case should be made in favor of the party who offers the most sound and convincing arguments based on the law as applied to the facts of the case. The prosecutor, or district attorney, is a lawyer who conveys charges against a person, persons or corporate entity. It is the prosecutor's onus to explain to the court what crime was committed and to expound on what evidence has been found which implicates the accused. The prosecutor should not be jumbled with a plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel. Although both serve the purpose of bringing a complaint before the court, the prosecutor is a servant to the state who makes accusations on behalf of the state in criminal proceedings, while the plaintiff is the complaining party in civil accounts. A defense attorney advice the accused on the legal process, likely outcomes for the accused and suggests plans. The accused, not the lawyer, has the right to make ultimate decisions regarding a number of vital points, including whether to testify, and to accept a plea offer or demand a jury trial in suitable cases. It is the defense attorney's duty to represent the interests of the client, bring forth procedural and evidentiary matters, and hold the prosecution to its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel may contest evidence presented by the prosecution or present exculpatory evidence and argue on behalf of their client. At trial, the defense attorney may try to offer a rebuttal to the prosecutor's accusations. In the U.S., an accused person is eligible to a government-paid defense lawyer if he or she is in danger of losing his or her life and/or liberty. Those who cannot afford a private attorney may be given one by the state. Historically, however, the right to a defense attorney has not always been common. For example, in Tudor England criminals suspected of treason were not allowed to offer arguments in their defense. In many jurisdictions, there is no right to an appointed attorney, if the accused is not in jeopardy of losing his or her freedom. The final decision of guilt or innocence is characteristically made by a third party, who is supposed to be impartial. This role may be performed by a judge, a panel of judges, or a jury panel composed of unbiased citizens. This process differs depending on the laws of the specific jurisdiction. In some places the panel is required to issue a common decision, while in others only a majority vote is needed. In America, this process depends on the state, level of court, and even agreements between the prosecuting and defending parties. Some nations do not use juries completely, or rely on scriptural or military authorities to issue verdicts. Some cases can be thrown without the need for a trial. In fact, the vast majority are. If the accused admits his or her guilt, a shorter process may be hired and a judgment may be rendered more quickly. Some nations, such as America, allow plea negotiating in which the accused pleads guilty, or not guilty, and may accept alteration program or reduced punishment, where the prosecution's case is frail or in exchange for the collaboration of the accused against other people. This reduced sentence is sometimes a reward for saving the state the expense of a formal trial. Many nations do not allow the use of plea bargaining, believing that it forces innocent people to plead guilty in an attempt to avoid a harsh punishment. The whole trial process, whatever the country, is covered with problems and subject to criticism. Bias and discrimination form an ever-present threat to an objective decision. Any prejudice on the part of the lawyers, the judge, or jury members threatens to destroy the court's credibility. Some people argue that the often Byzantine rules governing courtroom conduct and processes restrict a layman's ability to participate, essentially reducing the legal process to a battle between the lawyers. In this case, the criticism is that the decision is based less on sound justice and more on the lawyer's eloquence and charisma. This is a particular problem when the lawyer performs in a substandard manner. The jury process is another area of recurrent criticism, as there are few mechanisms to guard against poor judgment or ineffectiveness on the part of the layman jurors. Judges themselves are very subject to bias subject to things as usual as the length of time since their last break. Manipulations of the court system by defense and prosecution attorneys, law enforcement as well as the defendants have occurred and there have been cases where justice was denied. The new government of Puerto Rico will certainly face a lot of steep hills in setting its judiciary system as coming up with distinct methods of putting down the set standards for the state will involve a lot of custom laying to fit in the system to serve the intended purpose. Actually Puerto Rico is not a very large state but the crime rate has doubled up significantly and has been linked to the insurmountable amount of drugs that go in and out of the island. Located in the Caribbean, it has become a major transshipment point for drugs into mainland United States. This emanates into a number of crimes which the intended courts will be expected to work onto. A couple of institutions will be structured to aid in the court system Municipal Courts The mission of the municipal court is to neutrally adjudicate ordinance violation cases such that legal rights of individuals are secured and public interest is protected. The Municipal Court is a court of partial jurisdiction with 25 law-trained Judges, and as such is responsible for trying criminal offenses carrying maximum sentences of imprisonment of five years or less, civil cases where the amount in controversy should be $10,000 or less for Small Claims; unlimited dollar amounts in Landlord and Tenant cases; and $15,000 in real estate and school tax cases. Municipal Court has initial jurisdiction in processing every adult criminal arrest in Puerto Rico, and conduct preliminary hearings for adult felony cases. Because, an individual does not have the right to a jury trial in Municipal Court, cases may be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for a trial de novo. Many programs will be accessible to the community, which will improve the Court's operational efficiency while preserving its accessibility to the people. The court mediation program will bank mostly for the resolution of landlord & tenant cases and small claims. The tax court program will create revenue for Puerto Rico through its collection enforcement efforts. Diversion programs are offered to first-time summary offenders to accelerate certain summary offenses. There will be an educational program for the Court’s judges. As for its innovative initiative, the Municipal Court will establish a Treatment Court. It represents a concerted effort with the Court of Common Pleas, the District Attorney's Office, the Defender Association, the Health Department, the Police Department and the Prison System. In addressing the drug participation of the criminal justice population it is premised on the notion that the courts need to deal with some of the root causes of criminal activity. The Treatment Court is planned as an alternative to supplement normal case processing to provide treatment to substance abusing defendants. The Treatment Court integrates the dual aim of reducing a defendant's involvement in crime and their return to the criminal caseload and of increasing the chances that they can function more productively as citizens (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009). The Treatment Court model represents a new treatment structure which draws on a network of treatment services to respond to the clinically determined needs of participants and features a new and central role for the Treatment Court Judge. This court serves as a hub for delivery of treatment and other supportive services to more fully address the range of treatment, health, housing, literacy, educational, and other social service needs presented by drug-involved defendants. Major Trial Courts A trial court of general jurisdiction is authorized to hear any type of civil or criminal case that is not committed exclusively to another court. In the United States, the United States district courts are the trial courts of general jurisdiction of the federal judiciary; each U.S. state has a state court systems establishing trial courts of general jurisdiction, such as the Florida Circuit Courts in Florida, the Superior Courts of California in California, and the New York Supreme Court in New York. Neubauer & Meinhold (2009) say that not all cases will be heard in trial courts of general jurisdiction. A trial court of limited jurisdiction is sanctioned to hear only specified types of cases. Trial courts of limited jurisdiction may be limited in subject-matter jurisdiction (such as juvenile, probate, and family courts in many U.S. states, or the United States Tax Court in the federal judiciary) or by other means, such as small claims courts in many states for civil cases with a low amount in controversy. Other trials will not take place in courts at all, but in quasi-judicial bodies or in administrative agencies with adjudicatory power created by statute to make binding determinations with simplified procedural practices, such as arbitration. In the trial court, evidence and testimony will be admitted under the rules of evidence established by appropriate procedural law and determinations called findings of fact is made based on the evidence. The court, presided over by one or more judges, makes findings of law based upon the applicable law. In most common law jurisdictions, the trial court often sits with a jury and one judge; in such jury trials, the jury acting as trier of fact. In some cases, the judge or judges will act as triers of both fact and law, by statute, custom, or agreement of the parties; this is referred to as a bench trials. Appeals from the decisions of trial courts will be made by higher courts with the power of appellate review. Most trial courts are courts of record, where the record of the presentation of evidence is created and must be continued or transmitted to the appellate court. The record of the trial court is certified by the clerk of the trial court and transmitted to the appellate body. Most appellate courts do not have the expertise to hear testimony or take evidence, but instead rule solely on matters of law. Appellate Courts An appellate court is a court that gets cases on appeal from another court. Depending on the specific legal rules that apply to each circumstance, a party to a court case who is unhappy with the result might be able to challenge that result in an appellate court on particular grounds. These grounds typically could include errors of law, fact, or procedure. In different jurisdictions, appellate courts are also called appeals courts, courts of appeals, superior courts, or supreme courts. A party who files an appeal is called an appellant, plaintiff in error, petitioner or pursuer, and a party on the other side is termed as a respondent (in most common-law countries), a defendant in error, an appellee (in the United States) or defender (under Scots law). A cross-appeal is an appeal brought by the accused (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009) An appeal as of right is one that is guaranteed by statute or some underlying constitutional or legal principle. The appellate court can’t refuse to listen to the appeal. An appeal by leave or permission requires the complainant to obtain leave to appeal; in such a situation either or both of the lower court and the appellate court may have the discretion to grant or refuse the appellant's demand to appeal the lower court's decision. A good example of this is the U.S. Supreme Court, in which evaluation in most cases is available only if the Court exercises its will and grants a writ of certiorari. In contrast, appeals as of rights to the Supreme Court of Canada are available, for example, in criminal cases where there is dissent on a point of law in a provincial court of appeal (McCormick, 1994). In tort, equity, or other civil issues either party to a previous case may file an appeal. In criminal matters, however, the state or prosecution has no appeal as of right. And due to the double danger principle, in the United States the state or prosecution may never appeal a jury or bench verdict of acquittal (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009). But in these jurisdictions, the state or prosecution can appeal as of right from a trial court's discharge of an indictment in whole or in part or from a trial court's allowing of a defendant's suppression motion. Likewise, the state or prosecution may appeal an issue of law by leave from the trial court and/or the appellate court. The ability of the prosecution to appeal a decision in favor of a defendant varies significantly globally. All parties must present grounds to appeal, or it will not be heard (McCormick, 1994). A notice of appeal is a form or document that in many cases is compulsory to begin an appeal. The form is completed by the plaintiff or by the appellant's legal representative. The nature of this form can contrast greatly from state to state, and from court to court within a country. The specific rules of the legal system will dictate exactly how the appeal is officially begun. For example, the appellant might have to submit the notice of appeal with the appellate court, or with the court from which the appeal is taken, or both. The deadline for beginning an appeal is very short: traditionally, it is measured in days, not months. This can vary from country to country, as well as within a country, depending on the particular rules in force. In the U.S. federal court system, criminal defendants must file a notice of appeal within 10 days of the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed, or the right to appeal is lost. By agreement in some law reports, the appellant is named first. This can mean that where it is the defendant who appeals, the name of the case in the law reports reverses as the appeals work their way up the court hierarchy. In the United States federal courts, the parties' names always stay in the same order as the lower court when an appeal is taken to the circuit courts of appeals, and are re-ordered only if the appeal reaches the United States Supreme Court (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009). In Canada, criminal cases, including appeals, are always styled in the form R. v. defendant, where R characterizes the Latin word Rex or Regina, or the King or Queen, who is the reputed plaintiff in all criminal trials. Acquittals in criminal cases in Canada also are appealable, so the style of a criminal appeal is always the same whether the appellant is the defendant or prosecution (McCormick, 1994). High Court Generally, the state Supreme Court, like most appellate tribunals, is solely for hearing appeals of legal issues. It does not make any finding of facts, and thus holds no trials. In the rare case where the trial court made an egregious error in its finding of facts, the state Supreme Court will custody to the trial court for a new trial. This responsibility of correcting the errors of lower courts is the origin of a number of the different names for supreme courts in various states' court systems (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2009). The court consists of a panel of judges nominated by methods outlined in the state constitution. State supreme courts are completely dissimilar from any United States federal courts located within the geographical boundaries of a state's territory, or the federal United States Supreme Court. It takes part in clarification and applying the whole range of Australian law including issues of copyright, criminal law and procedure, company law, tax law, insurance, property law, personal injury, family law, trade practices and more. Decide cases of special federal significance including: challenges to the constitutional cogency of laws, challenges to the constitutional legality of state and federal government actions, appeals from federal, state and territory courts. Decisions of the High Court of appeals are final. There are no further appeals once a matter has been decided by the High Court, and the decision is binding on all other courts throughout (Crawford & Opeskin, 2004). Appointments Supreme Court of appeals judges, Court justices, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees are often endorsed by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee characteristically carries out confirmation hearings for each nominee. The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process. This is part of the system of checks and balances that is hypothetical to prevent abuse of power. If the Senate throw-outs the nominee, the President will pick another nominee or may nominate the same person for additional review. This authority comes from Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, which states that the President has the power to nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate, appoint Judges of the Supreme Court. Thus the President nominates but doesn’t appoint Justices of the Supreme Court. Actual appointment occurs only after Senate confirmation. Judicial and Attorney Ethical Standards There will be developed corps of professional administrative law judges to conduct state administrative adjudication proceedings. Administrative Procedure Act will include a dominant panel of hearing officers, designed to provide competent and professional hearing services for a variety of state agencies. In addition, major state agencies that conduct their own administrative hearings have developed in-house divisions of administrative law judges devoted to the adjudication function. It is significant for the integrity of the state's administrative adjudication system that its administrative law judges observe high ethical standards of conduct. Administrative law judges, like all other state employees, are currently subject to disciplinary action on such grounds as: Inexcusable neglect of duty, Dishonesty, Discourteous treatment of the public or other employees, Incompetency, Engaging in an employment, activity, or enterprise that is inconsistent, incompatible, or in conflict with the duties of the employee, Unlawful discrimination, Other failure of good behavior (Crawford & Opeskin, 2004). At least one body of Puerto Rico hearing officers will be expressly subject to an adjudicative code of ethics. Workers' Compensation Referees must subscribe to the Puerto Rico Code of Judicial Conduct and may not otherwise, directly or indirectly, engage in conduct contrary to that code.4 The canons of the Puerto Rico Code of Judicial Conduct admonish a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, to avoid rudeness and the appearance of indecency in all of the judge's activities, to perform the duties of judicial office neutrally and diligently, to conduct the judge's quasi-judicial and other extra- judicial actives to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial responsibilities, and to refrain from inappropriate activity. References Crawford, J. and Opeskin, B. (2004). Australian courts of law. Oxford University: Oxford University Press McCormick, P. (1994). Canada's courts. New York: Lethbridge, Lorimer, James & Company, Limited Neubauer, D. and Meinhold, S. (2009). Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States. New York: Cengage Learning. Read More