Judicial Process Final

bail

security (money) given as a guarantee that a released prisoner will appear at trial

preventative detention

holding a defendant in custody pending trial in the belief they are likely to commit further crimes or will flee

charging documents

information, indictment, or complain that states the formal criminal charge against defendant

grand jury

group of citizens who decide if persons accused of crimes should be indicted or not

exclusionary rule

evidence obtained through violations of constitutional rights of criminal defendant must be excluded from trial

indictment

a grand jury’s formal accusation of criminal offense made against a person

probable cause

standard use to determine if a crime has been committed and if there is enough evidence to believe that a specific individual committed it

courtroom working group

regular participants in the day to day activities of a particular courtroom, members interact on the basis of shared norms (judge, prosecutor, defense attorney)

plea bargain

process in which the defendant pleads guilty to a criminal charge with the expectation of receiving some benefit from the state

nolo contendere

no contest, I’m not saying I’m innocent or guilty but there’s enough evidence to charge me

parole

early release from prison on the condition of good behavior

good time

reduction of time served in prison as a reward for not violating prison rules

sentencing discrimination

illegitimate influences in the sentencing process based on the characteristics of the defendant

sentencing disparities

unequal sentences resulting from the sentencing process itself

sentencing guidelines

rules that attempt to reduce disparities and discrimination in sentencing by providing judges with a structure to guide their decisions

indeterminate sentencing

sentence that has both a minimum and a maximum term of imprisonment, the actual length will be determined by a parole board

truth in sentencing

defendant must serve a minimum amount of sentence, sentenced for 5 years they serve 5 years

mandatory minimum

required minimum amount of time for crime

sentencing guidelines factors

the crime committed or criminal background plays a role in sentencing

presumptive sentencing

harder for judge to not follow guidelines

compensatory damages

money awarded to a person for actual harm suffered

determinate sentencing

term of imprisonment imposed by a judge that has a specific number of years

litigation explosion?

most attorneys don’t spend time in trial

no litigation explosion

rate of civil trials decreased and were replaced with settlements instead

tort reform court case

Liebeck v McDonalds

tort reform explanation

McDonalds was told to pay 2.7mil in punitive damages, they only had to pay 480,000. Corporations called for tort reform to put a cap on compensatory and punitive damages

tort reform medical malpractice

worried frivolous suits would put doctors out of business

alternative dispute resolution

resolve disputes that are less adversarial and more effective

mediation

no judge, parties decide on resolution, have final hearing with judge

arbitration

neutral party listens to both parties and decides how to resolve issue

business contracts have

mandatory arbitration

early neutral

non-binding and informal, neutral party evaluates both sides

summary

abbreviated mock trial, no witnesses, informal and non-binding

default judgement

judgment awarded to the plaintiff because the defendant has failed to answer the complain

pleadings

innocent, guilty, nolo contendre, alford plea

summary judgement

decision by a judge to rule in favor of one party because the opposing party failed to meet a standard of proof

deposition process

witnesses being called, attorneys interview them and give deposition

deposition

witness’ sworn testimony out of court

motion

application made by one of the litigants requesting the judge to make a decision

prosecutor

public official who represents state in a criminal action

reasoning by analogy

look for similar cases, apply same logic to make decision

doctrine of stare decisis

taking existing precedence and use it

precedent

judges hate overturning decisions cause they want stability

special justification

case was wrongly decided or poorly reasoned, only reason to overturn

textualism

plain meaning, look at moment it was constructed

dynamic statutory interpretation

words have meaning but society changes are taken into account, don’t look at original intent

intentionalism

judges look at meaning when it was written by looking at legislative history

public choice

statutes are decisions and political compromises

strict constructionism

look at plain meaning, only look at what is written and understand meaning of those words

originalism

general understanding with historical context

non-interpretivists

view constitution through original values but believe it is a living document

attitudinal model

decisions are made by ideological thoughts, subjective interpretation of documents/law

new institutionalism

judicial decisions are made by personal opinion but there are boundaries

strategic choice

judges are strategic actors, take personal views and put it through current lense

class action lawsuit

hold business’ accountable, provides greater access to judicial system

third party litigation funding

champerty and maintenance, bring resources to pay for attorney

discovery process

gathering/discovering of all facts

deposition in discovery process

witnesses are called, attorneys interview them and give deposition

interrogatories in discovery process

questions sent to each side that must be answered

request for production in discovery process

physical evidence

motions for physical/emotional examination

defendant is inspected by medical expert

malpractice

professional misconduct or below standard of professional duties, applies to physicians and lawyers

the michigan model

patient makes complaint or staff realizes mistake

michigan model step 1

communication is open and direct

michigan model step 2

internal investigation with peer review, find opportunities for improvement

michigan model step 3

meet with victim and legal reps

michigan model step 4

if care was unreasonable, admit it and apologize

michigan model step 4.5

if care was fine, meet and explain the process

michigan model step 5

joint resolution

affidavit of merit statutes

case must involve medical negligence, negligence is obvious or plaintiff gets affidavit from medical professional to confirm malpractice

prosecutorial discretion

have enough material to present case and exercise justice

elements of a crime 1

definition in statute

elements of a crime 2

crime can’t be charged after the fact

elements of a crime 3

can’t single out people and declare it’s illegal for them but not for othes

elements of a crime 4

written crime must be precise

elements of a crime 5

has to have penalty attached to crime

insanity plea

must prove mental illness that impacted judgement

voir dire

process where prospective jurors are questioned to determine if there is cause to remove them from the jury

challenge for cause

method for removing juror because of specific reasons like prejudice, can only be granted by judge

jury nullification

jury in a criminal case nullifies the law by acquitting the defendant, regardless of the evidence presented before them