Lecture 9: Judicial system in US Flashcards
Court types and functions
trial courts and appellate courts
Trial Courts
Characteristics
o Cases in trial courts are decided by a single judge
A jury may play a role at the trial level
o Everything that takes place at a trial is transcribed
The transcription is called the “record of proceedings” and is necessary if a party appeals
o With few exceptions, trials are open to the public
Public trials promote transparency and trust
Functions of Trial Courts
o The principal function of a trial court is to resolve disputed claims, which includes:
Hearing evidence, determining facts, resolving conflicts in testimony, judging the credibility of witnesses and weight of evidence, and applying the law
o Trial courts also rule on pre-trial motions, which can dispose of cases without a trial, and conduct pre-trial conferences, which can narrow issues and lead to a settlement
Appellate Courts
• Characteristics
o Intermediate appellate courts usually decide cases in three-judge panels, with a majority of votes determining the outcome
o Final appellate courts decide cases with the all members of the court participating, with a majority of votes determining the outcome
o When all members of a court participate in an appeal, it is said the court heard the case en banc
• Proceedings at Appellate Courts
o Appeals are decided on the basis of the “record of proceedings” made at the trial and briefs submitted by the parties
There are no witnesses at an appeal and no new evidence can be introduced
There are no juries at an appeal
Brief oral arguments (30 minutes per side) are usually permitted
• Appeal from the trial court to the intermediate appellate court is a matter of right
o The right to an appeal insures that each case will be examined at least twice—first by a trial judge and then by a panel of three appellate judges
• Appeal from an intermediate appellate court to a supreme court is discretionary (certiorari)
o A supreme court (state or federal) will hear only those appeals that involve important matters of policy
Functions of Intermediate Appellate Courts
o The role of an intermediate appellate court is defined by it “scope of review”
o The scope of review, in turn, depends on whether the issue to be reviewed involves a question of law or a question of fact
o For questions of fact, the scope of review further depends on whether the fact finder at trial was a judge or a jury
Intermediate appellate courts are often called Courts of Appeal
o The principal function of an intermediate appellate court is to correct errors of law
Final appellate courts are often called the Supreme Court
o The principal function of a final appellate court is to establish policy
Scope of Review of Appellate Courts
• For appellate courts, the scope of review for issues of law is very broad:
• An intermediate appellate court reviews issues of law de novo (“from the beginning”) and can reverse a trial court decision for any “non-harmless error”
• Such review is appropriate because proper application of the law is separate from evaluation of evidence, which the trial judge was in a better position to evaluate
• With regard to alleged errors of fact made by a trial judge, an appellate court’s scope of review is much narrower
o A finding of fact made by a trial judge can be reversed on appeal only if that finding is “clearly erroneous
o This standard is consistent with the adversary system preference for immediate evidence (in person) over mediated evidence (by way of documents)
• With regard to alleged errors of fact made by a jury, an appellate court’s scope of review is even narrower
o A finding of fact made by a jury can be reversed on appeal only if there is “a complete absence of any substantial credible evidence to support it”
o This standard is consistent with the consti-tutional guarantees of right to trial by jury
What good is that guarantee if the jury’s decision could be overruled by an appellate judge?
Appellate Court Action
• An appellate court decides a case by issuing an opinion, which:
o Decides the outcome of the appeal
o Sets out the legal basis for the decision and the court’s reasoning
• Appellate court opinions are published and are available to the public
• By setting forth its reasoning and making its opinions public, appellate courts:
o Promote public confidence
o Promote critical evaluation
Appellate Court Opinions
An appellate court opinion can take one of three actions; it can:
• Affirm (approve) the decision of the trial court and allow the judgment in favor of the winning party to remain in place
• Reverse (reject) the decision of the trial court and order the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the party who lost at trial
• Remand (send back) the case to the trial court for further action
o Such as hearing evidence that was excluded at trial
Appellate Court Opinions—Types
- The majority opinion states the conclusion and reasoning of the majority of judges who voted on the outcome of the appeal
- A concurring opinion is written by one or more judges who agree with the majority’s decision but disagree with its reasoning
- A dissenting opinion is written by one or more judges who disagree with the outcome announced by the majority
Authority
- A majority opinion has precedential authority and must be followed by courts at the same or lower level within the relevant jurisdiction
- A concurring opinion has no precedential authority but might be useful as persuasive authority for future modification of the law announced in the majority opinion
- A dissenting opinion has no precedential value and has persuasive value only for reversing the law announced in the majority opinion
State vs Federal court jurisdiction
• State trial courts are courts of general jurisdiction
o States have all the powers of sovereignty, so state trial courts can hear any kind of case unless specifically vested in the federal courts by the U.S. Constitution (e.g. bankruptcy)
• State and Federal Judicial Systems—Trial Court Jurisdiction
• Federal trial courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
o Federal trial courts can hear only those types of cases granted to them by the states in the U.S. Constitution
o The two principal bases for subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts:
Federal question jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction
Federal Question Jurisdiction
• Federal question jurisdiction means that federal trail courts can hear cases that “arise under”:
o The U.S. Constitution
o Laws passed by Congress and signed by the President
o Regulations issued by federal agencies
• Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction
• Diversity jurisdiction exists in cases involving a claim by citizen of one state against a citizen of another state or a claim by a citizen of a state against a foreign national
o Diversity jurisdiction cases involve matters of state law, not federal law
o Jurisdiction is proper in federal court only because we seek to prevent favoritism by a state court for its citizen over the party from outside the state (or outside the U.S.)
• Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction
• Diversity jurisdiction also requires the “amount in controversy” to be at least $75,000
o This requirement prevents federal courts from being overwhelmed with cases based on state law
o It is also necessary that there be “complete diversity,” i.e. all plaintiffs must be from different states than all defendants
This is a judicially created rule
Judicial Selection—State Trial Courts
• In general, judges for state trial courts are elected as part of the same elections as for other political offices
• Judges typically serve terms of four years
• Election of Judges—Pros and Cons
• Popular election of judges is thought to be good because judges should be accountable to the people like any other government official
• On the other hand, popular election of judges poses risks
o that a candidate will “owe favors” to people who contribute to a political campaign and
o that after election a judge may avoid making controversial decisions that would hurt chances for re-election
• On balance, the value of accountability is thought to outweigh the risks
Judicial Selection—State Appellate Judges
• In general, state appellate judges are not elected; they are appointed by the governor of the state
• The term of appointment is often ten years
• Appointment of Judges—Pros and Cons
• Gubernatorial appointment (appointment by a governor) of judges is thought to be good because appointment can result in higher quality judges than might happen by election
• On the other hand, appointment of judges runs the risk of being non-democratic and of cronyism (appointees are friends and financial supporters of the governor)
• A Compromise Approach
• A compromise approach used in about half the states (including Indiana) combines appointment and election; this approach has three phases:
o A bi-partisan board examines the qualifications of all applicants and selects the three most qualified (merit selection)
o The governor then appoints the person to be an appellate judge but can only choose one of the three nominees
o After the judge serves an initial appointed term, voters must approve a further term
Judicial Selection—All Federal Courts
• All federal judges are appointed; none is elected
• The U.S. Constitution defines how a person becomes a federal judge:
o First, a person must be nominated by the President
o Second, the nomination is subject to the “advice and consent” of the Senate (i.e. a majority of Senators must approve the nomination)
• Federal Judges: Term of Office
• Once confirmed, federal judges hold their appointment for life
o Lifetime appointment is thought to be good because it insulates a federal judge from political pressures and allows a judge to make controversial decisions without fear of being voted out of office
• Federal Judges: Removal
• The only way to remove a federal judge is by impeachment
• Procedures for impeaching a federal judge are set forth in the U.S. Constitution and are the same as for impeaching the President:
o The House of Representatives, acting in a trial court-like role, must charge and try the judge with committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”
o The Senate, acting in a jury-like role, must then convict
