Historical Development and Organization of State Courts
Before 1787, the American colonies were sovereign with written constitutions and their own judicial oversight. States could adopt any organizational scheme, so there was no uniform three-tiered system across the states.
State trial courts do not fit a neat federal model; organizations vary by state.
Examples of variations: some states have district/trial courts, circuit courts, and a state supreme court; others use different names for those levels.
New York example: the trial court is called the Supreme Court, while the highest court is the NY Court of Appeals.
In most other states, the highest court is also called the Supreme Court.
State courts handle far more cases than federal courts; about 75% of cases in the United States are processed at the state level.
State constitutions grant additional rights beyond the federal constitution; statutory law is generally broader at the state level, so state court decisions touch every aspect of life within the state.
The North Carolina constitution, for example, grants more rights than the federal constitution.
Because state courts interpret state constitutions, they can recognize and enforce rights (e.g., abortion rights) that may be broader than federal protections in certain contexts (especially after changes at the federal level).
State courts thus play a crucial role in everyday life by interpreting state laws and constitutions.
The Constitution as a Basis and Categories of Cases Handled by State Courts
The Constitution (federal) is a general basis of laws; state constitutions grant further rights within the state context.
Categories of cases commonly handled by state courts:
Criminal cases, including misdemeanors and felonies
Regulation of business and professions
Private economic disputes
Wills, trusts, estates
Business contracts
Divorce, child custody, child support
Torts or personal injury (e.g., auto accidents, malpractice)
A later development known as New Judicial Federalism emphasizes that state courts should rely more on state declarations of rights in civil liberties cases beyond those enumerated in the US Constitution.
Colonial Period to 1850: Foundations of the State and Federal Judicial Structures
Colonial period: local judges of the peace (magistrates) handled disputes; they were appointed by a governor.
Appeals from local/colonial courts went to country courts; trial courts of the colonies developed; grand and petit juries were introduced at this level.
Grand juries played a key role in federal cases: they determine whether there is probable cause to permit a court case.
In the federal system, there must be a grand jury where there is an indictment for a federal crime.
The grand jury decides, at the request of the prosecutor, whether an individual should be charged; if they return an indictment, the prosecutor can proceed with federal charges.
The 5th Amendment establishes that the federal government can bring federal prosecution once a grand jury has decided in favor of the prosecutors.
Appeals from county/colonial courts ascend to the highest judicial level.
American law borrowed heavily from English common law, including formalities such as the use of juries and uniform procedures.
Early state courts differed from later federal structures: PA and OH continued to call their trial courts the Court of Common Pleas.
After the American Revolution and the creation of federal courts, the power of state/colonial government was reduced; distrust of state courts and lawyers grew.
Many of the writers of the federal Constitution were lawyers, and this distrust grew when courts began to overturn legislative enactments via judicial review, revealing conflict between legislators and courts.
Emergence of Tension: Politics, Law, and Judicial Review
Conflicts between legislatures and courts reflected diverging policy interests:
Legislatures often favored debtors and commoners; courts were more protective of creditors and property interests.
Out of these conflicts, courts emerged as defences of political constitutions, shaping the role of courts as fundamental institutions.
Modern State Courts: Industrialization, Growth, and Fragmentation
Modern state courts began after the Industrial Revolution, which spurred rapid urbanization in the early 20th century.
Population growth produced new and more complex legal disputes, leading to increasing caseloads.
Responses included:
Creation of more state courts
Clarification of jurisdiction by geography
Creation of specialized courts to handle specific subject matters
Expansion often outpaced planning, causing fragmentation and overlapping jurisdictions, which can confuse citizens.
Reform considerations included court costs, delays, procedures, and the reputation of judges, which could hinder reform due to concerns about job security and reassignment.
Some states moved toward unifying their court systems to simplify structure; others maintained a highly complex model with overlapping jurisdictions.
Organization of State Courts: The Four General Levels (Low to High)
In general, state court systems are divided into four levels:
Trial courts of limited jurisdiction
Trial courts of general jurisdiction
Intermediate appellate courts
Courts of last resort
Courts of limited jurisdiction handle the bulk of state litigation and constitute about 85% of courts in the US.
Names for courts of limited jurisdiction vary: Justice of the Peace, Magistrate Courts, County Courts, etc.
Jurisdiction is limited to minor cases; not typically trial courts of record in many instances; limited to infractions and some misdemeanors, with maximum jail time around 1 year and fines around $$\$3{,}000\$.
Appeals from limited jurisdiction courts go to trial courts of general jurisdiction.
Trial de novo is possible in some jurisdictions; these courts are often locally funded; judges may not be required to have a law degree; proceedings may not be recorded; some practitioners have criticized these courts as lacking rigor (e.g., “plumbers can become judges after 6 days of training”; witnesses may not be sworn).
Important functions of limited jurisdiction courts include presiding over misdemeanor cases and infractions, setting bail, and handling minor offenses with fines rather than jail.
Trial courts of general jurisdiction handle more serious civil and criminal cases; geographic jurisdiction is divided by judicial district.
Rural districts: judges may travel between cities to hold court; urban districts: courts may be held within the same city.
Judges may be divided into specialties (e.g., probate, family, criminal).
Courts of last resort (state supreme courts) are the final arbiters of state law and the state constitution in most cases.
Texas (TX) and Oklahoma (OK) each have two courts of last resort: one for civil cases and one for criminal cases, partly due to oil-related legal concerns.
These courts exercise gatekeeping authority and select cases to hear from among those handled by intermediate appellate courts.
Typical composition: five to nine judges; procedures mirror those of a supreme court, including oral arguments and written opinions.
Amici curiae (friends of the court) briefs are permitted and commonly filed by interest groups.
Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem-Solving Courts
Therapeutic Jurisprudence is a development in the judiciary emphasizing problem-solving courts.
Characteristics:
Specialty courts address specific groups of lawbreakers.
Courts are described as problem-solving: all stakeholders collaborate (defendants, victims, lawyers, judges, social workers) to find rehabilitation or behavioral-change outcomes.
Aims include minimizing prison admission and reducing mass incarceration; punishment is not the primary goal; therapy or rehabilitation is emphasized.
Examples of specialty courts:
Drug courts
Domestic relations courts
Juvenile courts
Juvenile treatment varies by state; juveniles are handled differently due to immaturity and impressionability.
Example: Alabama (AL) treats juveniles in trial courts of general jurisdiction; Virginia (VA) places them in trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Courtroom Work Groups and courtroom Culture
Courtroom work groups describe the local legal culture that develops within a jurisdiction, typically consisting of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.
Features:
A permanent organization that develops norms and routines.
Primary objective: handle cases expeditiously.
Each member has a distinct role within the group.
Functions within the courtroom work group:
Prosecutors push for conviction of individuals accused of crimes against the state.
Defense attorneys seek acquittal.
Judges serve as neutral arbiters to guarantee a fair trial.
The group maintains cohesion and reduces trial uncertainty through negotiation and plea bargaining when appropriate, while still conducting trials to uncover truth.
The work group model emphasizes efficiency and negotiated outcomes, which can influence the pace and nature of justice.