Chapter 3 - The Structure of Federal and State Courts

Abstract

The court’s two specific roles include crime control and maintaining and creating due-process provisions. Crime control includes issuing search warrants to police; charging people with criminal offenses; obtaining convictions through plea bargains and trials; conducting trials; issuing sentences or sanctions; and enforcing some judicial decisions, especially sentences of probation. Maintaining and creating due-process provisions includes monitoring the court process and assuring that police and court officers follow procedural laws; hearing appeals; evaluating the constitutionality of laws; and establishing precedent. Jurisdiction is the legal power or authority of a court to hear particular types of cases, adjudicate on such cases, and issue orders. Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear a case as determined by the type of offense. Geographic jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear a case as determined by the location of the offense. Hierarchical jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear a case as determined by the court’s function. Most cases are heard by a trial court. Original jurisdiction courts are lower courts within the judicial hierarchy. They make up most courts and handle most of the criminal cases from start to finish. Appellate courts are between original jurisdiction trial courts and the highest court. Most often, they review the evidence or procedures in a criminal trial court that led to its verdict. High courts are appeals courts. They do not hold criminal trials and have little original jurisdiction. They mostly review disputes that began at the trial stage and went through the intermediate court of appeals. The high court is often called the court of last resort or superior court and has authority over all inferior courts, which include intermediate appeals courts and lower courts. Constitutional courts include U.S. District Courts, U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. These courts create the core of the federal judiciary and hear federal criminal trials and appeals. These courts derive their power from Article III of the Constitution. The judges serve lifetime appointments. Legislative courts, which include most other federal courts, are created by Congress under Article I. These include U.S. Magistrate Courts; bankruptcy courts; the U.S. Court of Military Appeals; the U.S. Tax Court; and the U.S. Court of Veterans’ Appeals. These courts’ jurisdiction is more limited than constitutional courts, and their rulings can be appealed to constitutional courts. The judges serve for a limited time. Congress created the U.S. Magistrate Courts to help district courts carry out their duties. District judges appoint magistrate judges, supervise them, and assign them judicial tasks. Magistrates have limited jurisdiction. Much of their criminal trial work comes from handling most of the pretrial stages for district judges. District courts are where federal civil and criminal cases begin. District court cases must have a federal question, which means the federal government has jurisdiction over the dispute. Most of the court’s work involves civil cases. U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction. When reviewing a case on appeal, the court will usually have three of the appellate judges sit as a panel. These three will vote on the outcome, and the majority will become the ruling and will write any opinion. In serious cases, all of the judges in that circuit will hear and rule on the case. The Supreme Court is known as the “highest court in the land,” “the final arbiter,” and the “court of last resort.” The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction and hears cases coming from U.S. circuit courts or state high courts. It does not hear criminal trials. State courts handle a greater variety of cases and more cases than the federal judiciary. Federal courts have a larger geographic jurisdiction but hear only cases with a federal question. States have jurisdiction over all other trials and appeals. Nearly all lawsuits are resolved in state courts. Unification simplifies court structure by reducing the number and types of courts, the funding sources, and the rules. Unification increases professionalism among court workers and the quality of justice. A decentralized system has too much variation. Local courts do not always follow state judicial rules, sometimes issue frivolous warrants, have too many cases in which the defendant has no attorney, and violate due-process rights. Unification will bureaucratize local courthouses, increase their operating costs, and may reduce judicial independence. The decentralized system responds to local needs. Specialized state courts use of suspended or deferred sentences; adherence to principles of treatment; expanded judicial discretion; extended involvement of the courts; use of non-adversarial proceedings and multidisciplinary teams.