Final Exam Flashcards
Judges determine
what is amicable
Appeal to US Supreme Court
writ of associarity
SC does not have the ability to
bring cases to them
SC Appeal Process
Discussion list –> Rule of 4
SC may want to hear a case if
- large social issue
- final say
- no political issues or war
Information Gathering
stage before trial where all facts are discovered (through briefs)
Amicus Briefs
Lawyers outside the case submit a brief to assist on the case
Decision Making
- long uninterrupted soliloquies in order of seniority
- head count of sides
- drafting of decision
- approval by 5 justices
- concurrent/ dissenting opinions
Plurality Opinion
not all justices agree on the legal reasoning but agree on the outcome
Gideon v Wainright
states must supply lawyer for felony cases
Argrsinger v Hamlin
extended Gideon to any cases where the defendant may go to jail
Most crimes are not reported if
- criminals doing business with other criminals
- no trust in the system
- do not get caught (no trust in the system)
- embarrassed
- between family members
- minor crimes
low charge rate because of
youthful offenders, lack of evidence or unreliable witnesses
Preliminary hearing
determine if there is enough evidence for trial
Jury for preliminary hearing
23 members, 3 months, indictment, secret
Trial jury
6-12 members, length of trial, discover guilt, public
Bail
guarantee attendance to trial
Types of bail
secured bail, unsecured bail, released on your own reconesense
Plea bargaining
pleading guilty to a lesser crime
Reasons to plea for defendant
lesser sentence or saving money
Reasons why lawyers want pleas
speeds cases, lightens load, more money, and counts as conviction, system could not handle all cases going to trial
Criticisms of plea bargaining
- judges no longer involved
- elected officials no longer in control of sentence length
- may push people to plead guilty (not supported by Alaska example)
Exclusionary Rule
Evidence obtained illegally can not be used in trial
- fruit of the poison tree
- protect citizens
- keep police honest
- criminals go free
McNotten rule (insanity test)
person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time they did not know the nature of what they were doing or did not know what they were doing was wrong because of mental disease or defect
Insanity defense outcomes
no longer subject to death penalty
no set release date
1940-1970s sentencing
rehabilitation, variety in prison terms, did not work
1970’s to present sentencing
mandatory minimum and three strikes
Sentencing Reform Act
criteria for sentence and manual to guide judges
US v Booker
made sentence guidelines advisory not mandatory
Process of a lawsuit
harm–> complaint—> notice served—> counter claim (optional) —> discovery —> per-trial motions and conferences
Depositions
oral statements under oath given during discovery
Interrogatories
written questions and answers under oath given during discovery
Arbitration
both partners come and present in front of third party any decisions made are final
Mediation
council brings parties to a common ground
Four factors that influence judges
- Social norms
- What the law says and precedent
- Judges own views
- legislation, constitution, executive orders and regulations
How to determine statute meaning
examine statute, look at legislative history
Legislative history, criticism and example
- testimony, notes and statements
- only one persons view
- federalist papers
Four reasons to follow precedent
- Predictability
- Reliance
- Equality
- Efficiency
Five ways courts make policy changes
- Judicial Review
- Remedial Policy Making
- Statutory Interpretation
- Oversight and Administrative Activity
- Common Law
Judicial Review
only applicable to government actions, court gave themselves power of judicial review through Marbury v Madison
Remedial Policy Making
settle dispute between two people and make policy
Statutory Interpretation
courts interpreting statute because of vagueness or other issues
Oversight and Administrative Activity
Provisions that have bureaucracy fill in the blank
Common Law
fill in the gaps where there is no statutory law
Five Criticisms of the court as policy makers
- timeliness
- not enough information
- unelected
- lack of flexibility
- can not monitor
Brown v Board
constitutionality of segregated schools
- responding to plessy v furguson
- challenging to show in elementary school
Reasons why Brown went to court
- Southern legislature would not vote against segregation
- seniority system (southerners in charge of house)
- court was left
Brown removed
forced segregation (children go to schools in heir own neighborhood)
To some Brown decision had little effect, what did?
- Civil Rights Act
- Primary and Secondary Education Act
- Health and Welfare Committee
Mid 60’s began
active integration (busing)
Court did effect segregation because
- yearly doubling of desegregated schools
- lifted language from court cases
- superintendents attributed desegregation to court
De jure
by the law
De facto
in actuality, by fact
