Introduction to the American Judicial System

[viscousmemories]

Anyone know of a good online source for such a thing?

[JoeP]

I thought you knew it intimately? :umbrella:

[viscousmemories]

I thought you knew it intimately? :umbrella:
Hehe. Like a baseball knows a bat. :didi:

[JoeP]

Maybe we could discuss prison food?
here
Am I the only one who's noticed that almost every thread in this forum ends up becoming a discussion of food in some way or another?
/me aims to derail all threads in the same day

[maddog]

I don't know any good books to recommend, just off the top of my head, but here's the cartoon, cardboard cutout version of the judicial system, thumbnail-sketch size:

In American political/constitutional theory, government is not derived from God (i.e., the "divine right of kings"), but from the Enlightenment concept of "the consent of the governed," i.e., a social contract. People cede some of their sovereign power to the state (in the general sense) to provide for common welfare which they are unable to secure individually.

To keep the government as honest as possible, there are three co-equal "branches" that wield different powers, in a system of "checks and balances." The Legislative branch makes laws and has the power of the purse (they can levy taxes). The Executive branch carries out the laws, but they don't get to control what laws are made. It acts through organized agents (e.g., army, bureaucrats). The Judicial branch reviews the laws made by the Legislature and actions taken by the Executive. It does not have the "power of the purse," and has sometimes been "checked" by the Legislative branch by making a new law to override a decision of the court. The Executive has the right to appoint judges. The judges (federal) serve for life to insulate them from political influences.

It is nowhere explicit in the Constitution, but the U.S. Supreme Court early on fleshed out its powers by asserting the right of "judicial review" -- the right to declare a law of the Legislature or an action of the Executive "unconstitutional," as violative of the foundational document. This right of judicial review was first definitively asserted in Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176 [2 L.Ed. 60], and is indisputably part of our constitutional jurisprudence.

Virtually all the states have similar three-branch (tri-partite) structures. So, in the U.S.A., we have essentially fifty-one separate judicial jurisdictions: each state has its own laws, plus there are federal laws. Each state has its own court system, as the federal government has its court system.

The federal courts have jurisdiction over "federal questions" -- interpretation of federal laws and the federal constitution. Congress has also by enactment allowed for "diversity jurisdiction," where no federal law question is involved, but the case is between citizens of different states. The state courts have jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to state law. In many cases, federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction -- IOW, a case might be brought in either a state court or a federal court, and you may choose which you prefer.

Just as there are three branches of government, there are three levels of courts, usually, in either the federal or a state judicial system. Lowest level are the trial courts. This is what you see on TV. Somebody sues somebody else. A case may be criminal (person charged by the government with a crime against the whole of society) or civil, involving a wrong between private people, such as a car accident, a contract dispute, a property transaction, a divorce, etc. Once the trial is over, usually someone has won and someone has lost. Whoever has lost may feel that the trial was not fair in some way. They then appeal, normally to an intermediate appellate court.

Once a trial has been had, and a judgment has been rendered, the presumptions are in favor of the judgment, because the "day in court" has already been had, and the opportunity to convince the trier of fact has already happened. The appellate court does not hear witnesses (and thus cannot judge the body language or tone of voice or other indicators of truthfulness or credibility) but reviews any papers that were filed and a verbatim transcript of any oral proceedings. The burden is on the person who says something went wrong to show that the trial was somehow unfair. This is a difficult burden to overcome. That's why most appeals are affirmed.

Once the appellate court decides a case and issues a written opinion, the loser on appeal might decide that the appeal court screwed up/got it wrong. They then may ask for review by the highest court of the state (usually called the "Supreme Court" in most states; New York is different and calls its trial courts the "Supreme Court"). At the upper review level, however, the court is not obligated to take the case. At the intermediate level of appeal, usually a criminal defendant is afforded the right of appeal; any civil litigant also has a right to take an appeal, by paying a filing fee. If you pay, you can play. At the upper level, however, review is discretionary. The Supreme Court is not obligated to take a case. It must be convinced that the question has some special significance or importance. Another reason review may be granted is if there is a conflict on the issue among some of the lower level courts, and an authoritative decision by the highest court will resolve the conflict.

If a case has been taken all the way to a state supreme court, the loser at the state supreme court level might decide to petition the US Supreme Court to take the case, because it may involve an important issue or because there is a conflict among the states. Again, there is no right of appeal to the U.S. Supremes, whether the petition comes up from the intermediate federal appellate court or from the State Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court gets to decide which cases it will decide.

Anyway, that's a very, very brief, and very, very simplistic description of the U.S. judicial system. Without knowing further what you are interested in, the subject is very, very broad and it's hard to know what else to say. So this is just by way of an intro.


#11

[viscousmemories]

That's an excellent introduction, maddog. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. :)

I'm sure I'll come up with more questions later, but for right now where does the "grand jury" fit in? There's a Federal and State version of that too, no?

[wildernesse]

That's an excellent introduction, maddog. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. :)

I'm sure I'll come up with more questions later, but for right now where does the "grand jury" fit in? There's a Federal and State version of that too, no?

Grand juries--A body of people who are chosen to sit permanently for at least a month and who, in ex parte proceedings, decide whether to issue indictments. If the grand jury decides that evidence is strong enough to hold a suspect for trial, it returns a bill of indictment charging the suspect with a specific crime.

From my Black's law dictionary. I haven't had criminal procedure yet, so that's all I know.

[livius drusus]

That's an excellent introduction, maddog.

It sure is. I couldn't by any chance persuade you to make it into an article for the site, could I, maddog? Pretty please?

[maddog]

That's an excellent introduction, maddog. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. :)

I'm sure I'll come up with more questions later, but for right now where does the "grand jury" fit in? There's a Federal and State version of that too, no?
Grand juries--A body of people who are chosen to sit permanently for at least a month and who, in ex parte proceedings, decide whether to issue indictments. If the grand jury decides that evidence is strong enough to hold a suspect for trial, it returns a bill of indictment charging the suspect with a specific crime.

From my Black's law dictionary. I haven't had criminal procedure yet, so that's all I know.
Yes, grand juries exist in both the state and the federal systems. I am not as familiar with federal grand juries as with state (California) ones. In Calif., each county has a "grand jury" composed of citizens -- I'm not sure how many -- who serve for about a year. There also may be more than one grand jury or duties may be divided, because grand juries may serve a function in criminal justice, to hear evidence and decide whether someone should be indicted (accused) of a crime, but there are also grand jury panels which oversee civil matters -- auditing fiscal matters, reviewing and recommending proposed local legislation, things like that.

The "grand" jury (big jury) is to be distinguished from the "petit" jury (petty or small jury) -- the petit jury is the one that sits in judgment in the trial court, composed of 12 persons (criminal) and sometimes fewer (civil). The grand jury can be much bigger.

In its criminal function, the grand jury meets, at the request of the prosecutor, and examines evidence produced by the prosecutor to decide whether someone should be tried for an alleged crime. The grand jury proceedings are secret, the witnesses are not allowed to talk to anyone else about their testimony, and they are not allowed to have counsel with them in the grand jury room. In California (I don't know about other jurisdictions) there is an alternate method of initiating a criminal prosecution: a complaint may be filed, alleging that the accused has committed a crime. There is then a "preliminary hearing" at which the prosecution presents certain evidence, though by no means all of the evidence at its disposal. The judge (no jury at this stage) acts as a magistrate, finding preliminary facts. The question is, Is there probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed? Is there probable cause to believe that the accused committed it? The prosecutor needs to produce only enough evidence to provide probable cause that the accused should be held to answer at a trial. If the magistrate makes this finding, then the criminal prosecution is initiated by filing what is called an "information," alleging the accused committed a specified crime.

The grand jury/indictment finding parallels the preliminary hearing/information. That is, in order to indict, the grand jury must find there is probable cause to believe that the accused should be held for trial on the specified charge. Remember, these are alternative procedures. The preliminary hearing proceedings are open, public, proceedings. They are probably quicker (no need for grand jurors), and are used most frequently. Accusation by indictment is less common, but used where secrecy is important, such as investigating and preparing to accuse Mafia figures, to use a trite cliche'd example.

The civil grand jury does things like investigate prison/jail conditions, recommends reforms to governmental bureaucracy and programs, etc.

I'm not terribly familiar with federal grand juries, but I expect there must be one for each federal district -- sometimes there are multiple federal trial court districts within a state, so there may be more than one federal grand jury in these states. Mind you, I'm making this part up off the top of my head. Those more familiar with federal practice would know better than I.

I couldn't by any chance persuade you to make it into an article for the site, could I, maddog? Pretty please?
Gee, y'all, thanks for the compliments, but this is terribly, terribly informal. It's not really the right quality for an article. I'm also chicken because I don't know how to "make it into" an article. I tell you what, though, I give you full permission to do whatever you want with it. Either that, or maybe you can PM me and guide me through the process, let me know what you want it to be like. Also, it'd be good to get reviews from the other legal beagles around here. After all, I just did this stuff off the cuff, w/o looking anything up.

#14

[JoeP]

I couldn't by any chance persuade you to make it into an article for the site, could I, maddog? Pretty please?
Gee, y'all, thanks for the compliments, but this is terribly, terribly informal. It's not really the right quality for an article. Oh yes it is. This isn't Harvard Business Review or The Economist, you know. It's exactly right, informative and to the point.

<joke class=private>
#14:D </joke>

[D. Scarlatti]

n1 The grand jury indictment clause (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/01.html#1) of the Fifth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/) is one of the few Bill of Rights protections the courts have not recognized as being applicable to the states (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/18.html#1).