Which Court in the Federal System Use Three Judge Panels to Review Cases

abril 22, 2022 Postar um comentário

Chapter 2 The Criminal Justice System Continuum

Section 1, Federal and State Jurisdiction Abstruse

An understanding of the function and functions of the various court systems in the United States provides victim service providers with a solid foundation for understanding the dynamics of the law. The U.South. judicial system tin can be confusing and frustrating to victims when they are first exposed to it. Knowing some of the rationale for its present twenty-four hour period composition may aid victims empathize the foundations of our judicial arrangement and the manner in which laws operate and interact.

Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this section, students will understand the following concepts:

The principle of federalism and how it affected the construction of our court arrangement.

How the dual arrangement of state and federal courts functions.

The characteristics of American court systems.

How the juvenile court arrangement functions.

Statistical Overview

During each fiscal yr, 1996 and 1997, U.Southward. district courts terminated an boilerplate of 296,000 cases. Approximately 84% of these cases were civil, and 16% were criminal cases (BJS 1999).

Of the nearly 500,000 federal civil cases terminated during fiscal years 1996-97, 19% (96,284) were tort claims in which plaintiffs claimed injury, loss, or harm from defendants' negligent or intentional acts (Ibid.).

Of the estimated 1.76 million cases involving delinquency charges handled in U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction in 1996, 53% were candy formally, either by filing a malversation petition in the juvenile court or waiving the case to criminal court (Stahl 1999).

Characteristics of the American Judicial Organisation

In club to understand the principles of federal and state courtroom jurisdiction, it is essential to have a clear agreement of how the American judicial organization functions. The post-obit department will provide a brief overview of the judicial system in the United States.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM

The court system in the U.s. is based upon the principle of federalism. The first Congress established a federal court system, and the individual states were permitted to continue their own judicial structure. In that location was general agreement amongst our nation's founders that individual states needed to retain significant autonomy from federal control. Nether this concept of federalism, the United States developed as a loose confederation of semi-independent states having their own courts, with the federal court system acting in a very limited manner. In the early history of our nation, most cases were tried in state courts. It was simply later on that the federal government and the federal judiciary began to exercise jurisdiction over crimes and ceremonious matters. Jurisdiction in this context simply means the ability of the court to enforce laws and punish individuals who violate those laws.

A dual system of country and federal courts . As a effect of this historical evolution, a dual organisation of state and federal courts exists today. Therefore, federal and land courts may take concurrent jurisdiction over specific crimes. For example, a person who robs a banking company may be tried and convicted in land court for robbery, so tried and convicted in federal courtroom for the federal offense of robbery of a federally-chartered savings establishment.

Court organisation performs its duties with little or no supervision . Another characteristic of the American court system is that it performs its duties with little or no supervision. A Supreme Court Justice does not exercise supervision over lower court judges in the same way that a authorities supervisor or manager exercises control over his or her employees. The U.S. Supreme Court and the various state supreme courts exercise supervision only in the sense that they hear appellate cases from lower courts and constitute certain procedures for these courts.

Specialization occurs primarily at the state and local level . A 3rd feature of the U.S. courtroom system is one of specialization that occurs primarily at the country and local level. In many states, courts of express jurisdiction hear misdemeanor cases. Other land courts of general jurisdiction attempt felonies. Still other courts may be designated as juvenile courts and hear but matters involving juveniles. This process besides occurs in certain civil courts that hear only family police force matters, probate matters, housing matters, or ceremonious cases involving damages. At the federal level, there are courts such every bit bankruptcy that hear only cases dealing with specific matters.

Geographic organization of the American court system . The fourth characteristic of the American court arrangement is its geographic system. State and federal courts are organized into geographic areas. In many jurisdictions these are chosen judicial districts and contain various levels of courts. For example, on the federal level, the 9th Excursion Court of Appeals has commune (trial) courts that hear matters within sure specific boundaries, and an appellate court that hears all appeals from cases within that area. Several studies have been conducted regarding the deviation in sentences for the aforementioned blazon of criminal offence in geographically distinct courts. For example, in Iowa the average sentence for motor vehicle theft was 40-seven months while the average sentence for the same offense in New York was 14 months. (Pursley 1994). This should non be taken as a criticism; rather information technology may reflect different social values and attitudes within specific geographic areas.

The State Courtroom Arrangement

Historically each of the thirteen original states had their own unique court structure. This independence continued later on the American Revolution and resulted in widespread differences among the various states, some of which however exist today. Because each state adopted its own system of courts, the outcome was a poorly planned and confusing judicial structure. Equally a upshot, there have been several reform movements whose purpose has been to streamline and modernize this organization.

Many land courts can be divided into three levels:

Trial courts.

Appellate courts.

Supreme courts.

TRIAL COURTS

Trial courts are where criminal cases kickoff and finish. The trial court conducts the unabridged series of acts that culminate in either the accused's release or sentencing. State trial courts can be farther divided into courts of:

Limited or special jurisdiction.

Courts of general jurisdiction.

The nature and type of instance determines which court volition accept jurisdiction.

Limited jurisdiction . Courts that only hear and decide sure limited legal issues are courts of express jurisdiction:

Courts of express jurisdiction hear and determine bug such as traffic tickets or set bail for criminal defendants.

Typically, these courts hear certain types of pocket-size civil or criminal cases.

At that place are approximately 13,000 local courts in the U.s.a..
They are chosen county, magistrate, justice or municipal courts.

Judges in these courts may exist either appointed or elected.

In many jurisdictions these are part-time positions, and the incumbent may accept another job or position in addition to serving every bit a estimate. Nevertheless, merely because they handle small-scale civil and criminal matters does not mean these courts do not perform important duties. Often, the only contact the boilerplate citizen will accept with the judicial organization occurs at this level.

In addition, courts of express jurisdiction may hear certain types of specialized matters such as:

Probate of wills and estates.

Divorces.

Kid custody matters.

Landlord-tenant disputes.

Juvenile proceedings.

These types of courts may be local courts or, depending on the state, may be courts of full general jurisdiction that are designated by statute to hear and decide specific types of cases. For example, in California, a superior court is considered a court of full general jurisdiction; even so, certain superior courts are designated to hear only juvenile matters, thereby becoming a courtroom of limited jurisdiction when sitting as a juvenile court.

General jurisdiction . Courts of general jurisdiction are granted potency to hear and decide all issues that are brought before them. These are courts that ordinarily hear all major civil or criminal cases. These courts are known past a variety of names, such as:

Superior Courts.

Circuit Courts.

District Courts.

Courts of Common Pleas.

Since they are courts of full general jurisdiction, they have say-so over all types of cases and controversies and, unless otherwise geographically limited, may decide issues that occur anywhere within the state. Some larger jurisdictions such equally Los Angeles or New York may take hundreds of courts of general jurisdiction within the city limits. It is important to be certain nearly the correct terminology for courts in each jurisdiction. For example, the New York Supreme Court is the state'due south trial court and its highest courtroom is chosen the Superior Courtroom. Just the reverse is true in many jurisdictions.

Typically, these courts hear civil cases involving the same types of issues that courts of limited jurisdiction hear, although the amount of amercement will exist higher and may reach millions.

These courts also hear the well-nigh serious forms of criminal matters including death sentence cases.

Courts of general jurisdiction traditionally have the power to order individuals to do or refrain from doing certain acts.

These courts may issue injunctions that prohibit performing certain acts or require individuals to perform certain functions or duties.

This dominance is derived from the equity power that resides in courts of general jurisdiction.

Equity is the concept that justice is administrated according to fairness as contrasted with the strict rules of law. In early on English language Common Law, such separate courts of equity were known as Courts of Chancery. These early on courts were not concerned with technical legal bug; rather they focused on rendering decisions or orders that were fair or equitable. In modern times, the ability of these courts has been merged with courts of full general jurisdiction, allowing them to rule on matters that require fairness every bit well equally the strict awarding of the police force.

The power to issue temporary restraining orders (TROs) in spousal abuse cases comes from the equitable powers of the court.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appellate jurisdiction is reserved for courts that hear appeals from both limited and general jurisdiction courts.

These courts practice not concord trials or hear evidence.

They determine matters of law and outcome formal written decisions or "opinions."

In that location are 2 classes of appellate courts:

Intermediate, or Courts of Appeals.

Final, or Supreme Courts.

Courts of appeals . The intermediate appellate courts are known as courts of appeals. Approximately half u.s. have designated intermediate appellate courts.

These courts may be divided into judicial districts that hear all appeals within their commune.

They will hear and decide all issues of police that are raised on appeal in both ceremonious and criminal cases.
Since these courts deal strictly with legal or equitable problems, there is no jury to decide factual disputes.

These courts accept the facts as determined by the trial courts.

Intermediate appellate courts take the authority to reverse the decision of the lower courts, and to send the matter back with instructions to retry the case in accordance with their opinion.

They too may uphold the decision of the lower court.

In either situation, the party who loses the appeal at this level may file an entreatment with the next higher appellate courtroom.

SUPREME COURTS

Last appellate courts are the highest state appellate courts. They may be known every bit supreme courts or courts of final resort. There may exist five, seven, or nine justices sitting on this court depending on the state. This court has jurisdiction to hear and decide issues dealing with all matters decided past lower courts, including ruling on land constitutional or statutory bug. This decision is binding on all other courts inside the state. One time this courtroom had decided an outcome, the but potential entreatment left is to file in the federal court system, merely only if grounds for federal appellate jurisdiction exist.

The Federal Court Arrangement

While land courts had their origin in historical custom, federal courts were created by the U.S. Constitution. Section i of Article III established the federal court system with the words providing for "one Supreme Court, and . . . such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." From this beginning, Congress has engaged in a series of acts that has resulted in today's federal courtroom system. The Judiciary Human action of 1789 created the U.South. Supreme Court and established federal District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals.

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS

Federal District Courts are the everyman level of the federal court system. These courts have original jurisdiction over all cases involving a violation of federal statutes or other instances of statutorily-defined federal jurisdiction. These district courts handle thousands of cases per twelvemonth.

FEDERAL Excursion COURTS

Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals are the intermediate appellate level courts within the federal system. These courts are called circuit courts considering the federal arrangement is divided into 11 circuits. A Twelfth Excursion Court of Appeals serves the District of Columbia area. These courts hear all appeals from U.S. District Courts and habeas corpus appeals from state court convictions. These appeals are usually heard by panels of three of the appellate court judges rather than by all the judges of each circuit.

U.S. SUPREME COURT

The United States Supreme Court is the highest courtroom in the state. Information technology has the capacity for judicial review of all lower court decisions, every bit well equally state and federal statutes. By exercising this power, the Supreme Courtroom determines which laws and lower court decisions accommodate to the mandates set forth in the U.Southward. Constitution. The concept of judicial review was commencement referred to by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, where he described the function of the Supreme Court as ensuring that the will of the people will exist supreme over the will of the legislature (The Supreme Court of the The states, no date). This concept was firmly and finally established in the U.Southward. judicial system when the Supreme Courtroom asserted its power of judicial review in the example of Marbury 5. Madison (1803).

Although information technology is primarily an appellate courtroom, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in the following cases:

Cases between the Us and a land.

Cases between states, and cases involving foreign ambassadors, ministers, and consuls.

Cases between a country and a citizen of another state or country.

The courtroom hears appeals from lower courts including the diverse state supreme courts. If four justices of the U.Southward. Supreme Court vote to hear a case, the courtroom will issue a Writ of Certiorari. This is an lodge to a lower court to send the records of the case to the Supreme Court for review. The courtroom meets on the first Monday of October and ordinarily remains in session until June. The court may review any case it deems worthy but it actually hears very few of the cases filed. Of approximately five,000 appeals each year, the court agrees to review near 200, just may not issue an opinion on each case.

VICTIM CASES AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL

The Supreme Court handles perhaps the broadest conceivable array of legal and social bug. Contempo victim-related Supreme Courtroom decisions have addressed the post-obit topics:

Victim impact statements.

Hate crimes.

Child victims of criminal offence.

Notoriety-for-profit for perpetrators.

The Juvenile Court System

Because of the meaning increase in importance of juvenile offense in our lodge, an overview of juvenile courts within the state and federal courtroom organization is of import. While in that location are some differences, both federal and country systems were initially founded upon the concept of rehabilitation of immature offenders. Additionally, both systems wanted to shield juveniles from public scrutinies; therefore, each contained provisions for keeping juvenile matters confidential.

THE FEDERAL Court JUVENILE System

When Congress addressed the issue of juvenile offenders, it established 2 alternatives for the prosecution of juveniles:

The juvenile tin waive his or her rights to exist treated as a juvenile.

The juvenile can have the matter treated as a civil proceeding chosen juvenile adjudication.

If the court finds that the juvenile committed the crime, he or she faces a series of federal sanctions including detention. There is a federal preference for country prosecution of juveniles since there is no separate federal juvenile court judge or juvenile detention organization. If a juvenile is adjudicated to exist a delinquent, he or she is placed in a state juvenile facility or on juvenile probation. The federal authorities contracts with states for this service.

Until the passage of the Crime Command Act of 1990, the federal authorities only prosecuted juveniles who committed crimes on federal reservations, where the states had no jurisdiction. The Offense Control Act added 2 other categories of juveniles who fall under federal juvenile court jurisdiction: juveniles who commit felony crimes of violence and/or those juveniles involved in sure drug felonies. Like to most state court systems, federal law allows for the transfer or certification of a juvenile to "adult condition." This procedure allows juveniles to be tried every bit adults in either the state or federal court organization.

Nether federal law, juveniles are those persons under xx-i who commit a federal law-breaking before their eighteenth altogether. A federal judge acts every bit the federal equivalent of the state juvenile courtroom guess. The proceedings are typically confidential with no members of the news media in attendance. Federal jurisdiction in juvenile matters is established where:

The land does non have jurisdiction.

The state does not have programs or services available for juveniles.

The offense charged is a violent felony or drug offense and there is a substantial federal involvement in the case.

A juvenile proceeding is initiated by the filing of an information. In most cases, the U.S. Attorney must file a certification stating that there are grounds for federal jurisdiction. The hearing in federal courtroom is very like to a court trial.

THE State COURT JUVENILE Organization

The separate handling of juvenile justice matters has roots throughout history. Even in earlier periods in America, sure specific juvenile accommodations were in use. Even so, the nowadays day American country-level juvenile court system dates back to 1899 when the country of Illinois passed the Illinois Juvenile Courtroom Act. Information technology was at that time that the juvenile court system equally nosotros know it today came into existence (Play a trick on 1972). This statute separated the juvenile court organisation from the adult criminal system. Information technology labeled minors who violated the law as "delinquents" rather than criminals, and required that juvenile court judges determine what "is in the best interests of the pocket-size" in rendering their decision.

The juvenile courtroom system is guided by five basic principles:

one. The land is the ultimate parent of all children within its jurisdiction (the doctrine of parens patriae) and has the power to step into the parental role in loco parentis.

ii. Children are worth saving and the state should utilize not-punitive measures to do and then.

3. Children should exist nurtured and not stigmatized past the court process.

iv. Each child is unlike and justice should exist tailored to encounter private needs and requirements.

5. The use of noncriminal sanctions are necessary to give primary consideration to the needs of the child (Cadwell 1966, 358).

It is important to note that each country determines its own jurisdictional age of "minors" handled by its juvenile system. Near involve children who are nether eighteen years of age. A few states use higher ages, upward to xx-1, usually for specific problems. In response to increasingly violent juvenile crime, some states have lowered their upper age limit for juvenile jurisdiction to 15, and fifty-fifty fourteen years of age.

While these principles were originally adopted for delinquents or minors who committed criminal acts, they have been broadly applied to proceedings involving children who are victims of corruption. Juvenile courts accept jurisdiction over three types of minors:

Delinquents.

Condition offenders.

Dependent children.

Delinquents are minors who have committed criminal offenses. Status offenders engage in acts that are non problematic if committed by an adult, such as truancy, running away from dwelling house, or incorrigible behavior. Dependent children are those who are in need of state intervention considering of corruption or neglect by their caretakers.

ABUSE AND Fail PROCEEDINGS

While the procedure is basically the same for delinquents besides equally dependent minors, the juvenile court procedure dealing with children who are victims of abuse or neglect is of particular importance to victim service providers:

This process is normally initiated by filing a petition with the courtroom.
A petition is a formal pleading that alleges that the parents or custodians endangered the wellness or welfare of the child.

The petition may allege fail, physical, emotional or sexual abuse of the child and gives the juvenile court authorisation to human activity.

Detention hearings in child maltreatment . Once the petition is filed, many jurisdictions hold a show cause or detention hearing. This hearing is usually conducted inside xx-four to xl-8 hours later filing the petition or the emergency removal of the child. The detention hearing requires child protective services or police to produce evidence justifying the emergency removal of the kid, or to present testify that would allow the court to gild the removal of the child if he or she is even so in the custody of the parents. The parents may likewise admit or deny the allegations independent in the petition at this hearing.

If they admit the allegations, the court orders child protective services to carry an investigation to determine where the child should be placed as a result of the admissions by the parents.

If the parents deny the allegations, the court sets a date for an adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing.

Awaiting this hearing, the courtroom may order the child temporarily placed in a living system outside the home.

Child corruption and neglect adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing . An adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing is used to decide if there is sufficient evidence to determine whether the allegations in the petition are truthful. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court will render its decision. If the petition is upheld, the courtroom sets a engagement for a dispositional hearing. If the petition is non upheld, the child is returned to the parents and the case is dismissed.

During the adjudicatory hearing, the land presents show to support its claim that the child has been driveling.

This may take the form of having the kid testify to the incident, or experts employed by the land may render their stance regarding the facts surrounding the instance.

The state is represented by a juvenile prosecutor, state's advocate, county counsel or other governmental chaser.

The parents have a right to cross examine witnesses and present whatever evidence they desire in rebuttal to the country's testify.
At the end of the hearing, both parties may present arguments in favor of their position.

The burden of proof to uphold the abuse or fail petition is the same every bit a civil case. In civil trials, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the example past a preponderance of the show. This is normally defined equally slightly more than than fifty percent. A criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is non proof beyond all doubt, but it is proof of the "material facts to a moral certainty" that they did occur.

In juvenile dependency cases, in order to remove the child from the custody of his or her parents, some jurisdictions require proof by articulate and convincing show. This is more than a preponderance of the prove, but less than beyond a reasonable dubiety (Otterson 1979).

Once the adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing is concluded, the side by side hearing to occur is the dispositional hearing. This hearing is to determine where the kid should exist placed. The courtroom will determine whether the child should be immediately returned to his or her parents or placed in an out of domicile environment for a period of time. The guiding principle in this hearing is "the all-time interests of the child." If the court orders the kid placed outside the home, it may schedule periodic reviews to make up one's mind if or when the child will be reunited with the parents. Typically, a specific plan regarding placement is established and monitored.

From the get-go of the intervention process until the final dispositional hearing and beyond, every political party in the action has certain rights. The parents and the child each has distinct rights that must be observed and protected. These rights include:

Find.

An opportunity to be heard and nowadays show.

The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.

Constructive representation by an attorney.

In a dependency hearing, the rights of a child include appointing an chaser who will speak on behalf of the kid. This chaser must represent what he or she believes is in the best interests of the kid regardless of what CPS or the parents' abet believes is appropriate. In some jurisdictions this is a government-funded attorney; in others, information technology is a private chaser appointed by the court to represent the child. Depending on the case, the attorney may side with the parents and contend for return of the child to their care, or the attorney may take the position that it is in the all-time interests of the child to be removed from the custody of the parents. Even if the child is removed temporarily from the custody of his or her parents, the child has a right to reunification efforts after a reasonable time.

Many jurisdictions additionally engage Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), or similarly trained (typically non-chaser) individuals. The role of these child advocates is to present to the court an contained assay of what is all-time for the child. This is particularly of import; as the child's legal representative, the courtroom-appointed lawyer must forrard the child'due south wishes when an objective view would be to the contrary. For example, the lawyer may decide that he or she must vigorously advocate a juvenile'south wish to return home, while an contained child advocate may determine that this is not actually in the child's all-time interest.

During dependency hearings, parents accept a correct to observe of the hearing, an opportunity to be present at that hearing and to be represented past an attorney. They may present any evidence they desire to rebut the charges. If the kid is removed from their custody, they have the right in most jurisdictions to a re-unification programme that will allow them to regain custody of the child in one case they have finished treatment or counseling or complied with other court orders.

VICTIMS' RIGHTS IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY MATTERS

Among the about chop-chop changing areas in the victim assistance field is the extension of victim rights in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Historically, juvenile courts have been closed proceedings and records accept been by and large confidential. Fifty-fifty the victim was unable to acquire much, if anything, about the progress of a case against the juvenile who allegedly offended against them. Juvenile delinquency proceedings are analogous, in many means, to adult criminal trials, with all the typical obstacles to victim participation. The juvenile court's confidentiality provisions for alleged delinquents exacerbate these obstacles tremendously.

Many states take, or are, because rolling back their previously difficult and fast confidentiality statutes. States similar Connecticut, Missouri, and Arizona have gone farther to provide for victims' rights and accommodations in juvenile courts that mirror those in adult courts. This provides fertile ground for expansion of victim advocacy and assistance efforts to a previously underserved population, victims of juvenile crime.

Definition of Terms

Adjudicatory or Jurisdictional Hearing: Used to determine if there is sufficient evidence to notice the allegations in the petition are true.

Delinquents: Those minors who have committed criminal offenses.

Condition Offenders: Minors who are truant from schoolhouse, run away from home or are considered incorrigible.

Dependent Children: Those who are in demand of country intervention because of neglect or abuse by their caretakers.

Detention Hearing: Requires kid protective services or constabulary to produce evidence justifying the emergency removal of the child or present evidence that would allow the courtroom to order the removal of the child if he or she is even so in the custody of the parents.

Dispositional Hearing: To make up one's mind where the child should exist placed.

Parens Patriae: Meaning "the country is the parent," this doctrine is fundamental to the juvenile courtroom'south ability to make up one's mind on placements, handling and other determinations regarding children.

Petition: A formal pleading that alleges that the parents or custodians endangered the health or welfare of the child.

Writ of Certiorari: An social club to a lower court to send the records of the case to the Supreme Court for review.

The Dual System of Courts in America

FEDERAL COURTS

U.S. Supreme Court