Chapter 4 & 5 Quiz

Introduction

  • State courts were shaped by the geography of early america

  • Rural areas needed justice and the difficulty of traveling to these locations had a lasting impact on the state court system

  • State organization does not always parallel the relatively simple organizational structure of the federal judiciary

History of state courts

Colonial period: governors were appointed by the king of England and had most of the

power

  • Public prosecutors came onto the scene during the 17th and 18th centuries, and

some countless event had district attorneys appointed by the governors

  • Justice of the peace courts were the workhorses during this period

  • Broad discretion by judges and relatively few rights for the defendants

Early state courts: after the american revolution, state legislatures kept a close eye on the

courts

  • Could remove judges from their posts

  • Abolished certain courts that issued unpopular decisions

  • Tensions between legislatures and courts grew

  • County courts were played with corruption

  • Judges selection was controversial, as states had different methods

Following the Civil War, America entered into a period of rapid industrialization and

growth

  • Led to increases in population and, in turn, a surge of caseloads

  • Rapid changes in state judiciaries led to various successes and failures

  • Jurisdictional boundaries were unclear

Contemporary state courts: from the mid 1900s onward, state courts continued to grow in

numbers and specializations

  • Some were developed to meet the demands of increasing caseloads

  • Some were created to cover specific geographic areas

  • Some were developed to target specific problems

There was considerable confusion when jurisdictional boundaries overlapped

Many called for the consolidation of state courts

  • However, there was criticism of unification; some judges and other courtroom

personnel were resistant

Toward unification

Court unification is concerned with simplifying state court structures and

centralizing control

Five principal elements of court unification:

  • Consolidating state’s numerous trial courts into a one or two-tier system

  • Centralized management by an accountable body

  • Grant to the state supreme court of procedural and administrative rule-making

authority

  • State funding, with the state assuming complete financial responsibility for the

expenses of the judiciary

-

Unitary budgeting

-

Number of courts

  • Almost impossible to get an accurate count

  • Definitions include 16 different types of courts

-

Lack of uniformity in names

  • States have different definitions (including judgeships)

State Court Structure

  • Limited jurisdiction courts

  • Constitute the vast majority of courts

  • Subject matter consists of minor offenses

  • Sanctions are usually very minor

  • Try civil cases for very small amounts of money

  • Records of court proceedings are not kept

  • Makes it difficult to appeal the court's decision

  • If appealed, go before the general jurisdiction courts as a new trial, a trial

de novo

  • Judges sometimes have no formal legal training

  • Frequently played by resource shortages

  • Often disposed of in large numbers

  • Full blown trials are very rare because more time consuming and expensive

  • Some hold preliminary hearings in felony cases

-

Justice of the peace courts -

Found only in 5 states (AZ,DE,LA,MT,TX)

  • Texas Justice of the Peace (JOP) courts have original jurisdiction over Class c

MISDEMEANORS

  • Justice of the peace sometimes issue search and arrest warrants, perform wedding

ceremonies, and can serve as coroners in less populous counties

Magistrate Courts

  • Similar to JOP courts; no jury trials

  • Chief magistr ates assigns cases and sets court dates

  • Municipal/City/County/Metropolitan Courts

  • Usually only has jurisdiction in its own municipality

  • County courts have concurrent jurisdiction with JOP courts

  • Other specialized limited jurisdiction courts

  • Some are truly limited to just a handful of cases; ex. Dedicated probate courts or

family courts

Justices in lower courts

  • Most crimes in these courts are minor

  • Most are dealt with swiftly so as not to take a significant toll on an already

overworked criminal system

General jurisdiction courts

  • Often serve as the major trial courts

  • / Some specialize in certain types of cases

  • Typically organized along political boundaries

Criminal cases: best known for conducting high-profile felony cases before full

juries

Civil cases: usually involve dollar amounts over a specified threshold

Intermediate appellate courts

  • Primary function is to review the judgements of trial courts and decisions of

administrative agencies

  • Numbers vary by state in terms of how many judges participate in deciding

whether to grant review and how many are needed to grant review

  • Usually consists of approximately three judges who review lower court’s appeals

State supreme courts

  • Have the last word over matters arising from the lower courts

  • Often petitioned with more cases than they can review during a term

  • Some states will have additional courts of last resort (TX, OK)

  • Some types of cases go directly to state supreme courts (ex. Death penalty cases)

State supreme courts - policy making

  • Have strong policy-making authority

  • Fifty state supreme court versus one united states supreme courts

  • There is simply not enough time and resources for the federal courts to

decide all federal matters, so these cases are adjudicated at the state level

(example of judicial federalism)

State Court Workloads

State supreme court - policy making

-Lower courts

  • Total incoming trial caseloads are about 80-100 million (slight decrease

from 2007-2016)

Appellate courts

  • Have appellate and original jurisdiction

  • Vary in mandatory and discretionary caseloads

  • The supreme court sometimes issues opinions that alter trends in appellate

caseloads at the state level

Dispositions - how many defendants who come into the state courts are

convicted?

Serious offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter): around 68 out

of every 100 end in conviction

  • Total there are over 1,000,000 convictions for felonies in state courts

  • Most convictions are for drug offenses, followed by property

crimes, and then violent crimes

Administrative office of the courts

  • Several functions: budget preparation, data collection, research, etc.

  • Some states also run juvenile and adult probation services through the

administrative offices of the court

California’s Office of the Courts

  • One of the larger agencies with a wide range of functions

Managing the workload

-

Case flow management is court supervision of all cases filed in the court

  • An administrative process sole concern is efficiency

  • A court knows it has a case flow management problems when:

  • More cases are coming in than being resolved

  • The age of the pending caseloads exceeds ideal standards

Adjournment: a continuance of a scheduled event

-

Too many leads to the scheduling of many cases; it is critical to control

adjournments

The commissions on trial court performance standards was created in 1987

-

Released measures and standards in 1990

-

Five areas of performance

  • Access to justice

  • Expedition and timeliness

  • Equality, fairness, and integrity

  • Independence and accountability

  • Public trust and confidence

Recent Developments

  • State courts are in a difficult spot today

  • Funding has been cut, staffing levels reduced, and there can be strain with other

branches of government

  • However, courts are reinventing themselves and innovating at unprecedented rates

-

Budget cuts

  • Were significant following the 2008 recession

  • Reduced court budgers and suspension of vacancies combined with

layoffs

  • Some reduced operating hours

  • Led to delays and fewer jury trials

Public support and political problems

Public opinion

  • Courts are increasingly being forced to respond to public pressures for

efficiency, accountability, and fairness

  • People are not necessarily supportive of the courts

  • There is a movement to make courts more accessible and fair

Politicizing state judiciaries

  • The relationship between state judiciaries and legislatures have become

contentious

State budget crises

  • National interest group pressure

  • Lawsuits challenging legislation

-Court decisions with sweeping policy implications

Bail reform

  • Widespread useof secured bail bonds

  • Some states have eliminated money bail

  • Released on recognizance or stay in jail

  • Advances in prediction

Litigation

Marijuana legalization

  • Legal in many states

  • May reduce the court’s workload

May create issues in the court system handling those already convicted of

marijuana offenses

President trump had three executive orders that changed the scope and

enforcement of federal immigration policies

ICE focusing on unauthorized aliens who were suspected of terrorism

DHS now directs efforts of immigration enforcement to those not only convicted

of crimes, but those accused of crimes

Chapter 5

Introduction 

  • State courts were shaped by the geography of early America

  • Rural areas need justice and the difficulty of traveling to these locations had a lasting impact on the state court system 

  • State organization does not always parallel the relatively simple organizational structure of the federal judiciary.

History of State Courts (1 of 7) 

Colonial Period—governors were appointed by the king of England and had most of the power

  • Public prosecutors came onto the scene during the 17th and 18th centuries,and some counties even had district attorneys appointed by the governors

  • Justice of the peace courts were the workhouses during this period 

  • Broad discretion by judges and relatively few rights for the defendants 

(2 of 7) 

Early State Courts 

After the American Revolution, state legislatures kept a close eye on the courts 

  • Could remove judges from their posts 

  • Abolished certain courts that issued unpopular decisions 

  • Tensions between legislatures and courts grew 

  • County courts were plagued with corruption

  • Judge selection was controversial, as states had different methods. 

(3 of 7) 

Following the Civil War, American entered into a period of rapid industrialization and growth

  • Led to increases in population and , in turn, a surge of caseloads

  • Rapid changes in state  judiciaries led to various successes and failures

  • Jurisdictional boundaries were unclear

(4 of 7) 

Contemporary State Courts

From the mid - 1900s onward, state courts continued to grew in numbers 

and specializations

  

  • Some were developed to meet the demands of increasing caseloads  

  • Some were created to cover specific geographic areas

  • Some were developed to target specific problems

(5 of 7) 

There was considerable confusion when jurisdictional boundaries overlapped 

Many called for the consolidation of state courts 

  • However, there was criticism of unification; some judges and other courtroom personnel were resistant 

Toward Unification 

  • Court unification is concerned with simplifying state court structures and centralizing court.

(6 of 7) 

Five principal elements  court unification: 

  • Consolidating states numerous trail courts into one or two-tier system 

  • Centralized management by an accountable body 

  • Grant to the state Supreme Court of procedural and administrative rule-making authority 

  • State funding, with the state assuming complete financial responsibility for the expenses of the judiciary 

  • Unitary budgeting 

(7 of 7) 

Number of Courts 

Almost impossible to get an accurate count

  • Definitions included 16 different types of courts 

  • Lack of uniformity in names 

  • State have different definitions (e.g., judgeships) 

State Court Systems (1 of 9) 

Limited Jurisdiction Courts 

  • Constitute the vast majority of courts 

  • Subject matter consists of minor offenses 

  • Sanctions are usually very minor

  • Try civil cases for very small amounts of money 

  • Records of court proceedings are not kept 

  • Makes it difficult to appeal the court's decisions 

  • If appealed, go before the general jurisdiction courts as a new trail, a trial de novo 

( 2 of 9) 

  • Judges sometimes have no formal legal training 

  • Frequently plagued by resource shortages

  • Ofter disposed of in large numbers

    • Full blown trials are very rare

  • Some hold preliminary hearings in felony cases 

( 3 of 9) 

Justice of the Peace Courts 

  • Found in only five states (AZ,DE,LA,MT,TX) 

  • Texas Justice of Peace (JOP) Courts have original jurisdiction over Class C misdemeanors

  • Justices of the peace sometimes issue search and arrest warrants,perform wedding ceremonies, and can serve as corners in less populous counties 

(4 of 9) 

Magistrate Courts

  • Similar to JOP Courts; no jury trials 

  • Chief magistrate assigns cases and sets courts dates 

  • Municipal/ City/ County/ Metropolitan Courts

  • Usually only has jurisdiction in its own municipality 

  • County courts have concurrent jurisdiction with JOP Courts 

(5 of 9) 

Other specialized Limited Jurisdiction Courts

  • Some are truly limited to just a handful of cases;e.g., dedicated probate courts or family courts

  • Justices in Lower Courts

  • Most crimes in these courts are minor 

  • Most are dealt with swiftly so as not to take a significant toll on an already overworked criminal system 

( 6 of 9) 

General Jurisdiction Courts 

    Often serve as the major trial courts 

  • Some specialize in certain types of cases 

  • Typically organized along political boundaries 

Criminal Cases- Best known for conducting high-profile felony cases before full juries

Civil Cases- Usually involve dollar amounts over a specified threshold 

(7 of 9) 

Intermediate Appellate Courts 

  • Primary function is to review the judgements of trial courts and decisions of administrative agencies 

  • Numbers vary by state in terms of how many judges participate in deciding whether to grant review and how many are needed to grant review. 

  • Usually consist of approximately three judges who review lower courts’ appeals

(8 of 9) 

State Supreme Courts

  • Have the last word over matters arising from the lower courts

  • Often petitioned with more cases than they can review during a term

  • Some states will have additional courts of “last resort

  •  (E.g., Texas and Oklahoma)

  • Some types of cases go directly to state supreme courts (e.g, death-penalty cases )

(9 of 9) 

State Supreme Courts- Policy Making 

  • Have strong policy-making authority 

    • Fifty state supreme courts versus one United States Supreme Court

    •  There is simply not enough time and resources for the federal courts to decide all federal matters, so these cases are adjudicated at the state level (example of judicial federalism )

State Court Workloads (1 of 5) 

State Supreme Court-Policy making 

  Lower Courts 

  • Total incoming trial caseloads are around 80 to 100 million (slight decrease from 2007 to 2016) 

  Appellate Courts 

  • Have appellate and original jurisdiction 

  • Vary in mandate Tory and discretionary caseloads 

  • The Supreme county sometimes issues opinions..

( 2 of 5) 

Dispositions—how many defendants who come into the state courts are convicted?

  • Serious offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter): around 68 out of every 100 end in conviction

  • Today there are over 1,000,000 convictions for felonies in state courts

  • Most convictions are for drug offenses, followed by property crimes, and then violent crimes 

State Court Administration 

Admistarivate Office of Courts 

  • Several functions—budget preparations,data collection, research,etc.

  • Some states also run juvenile and adult probation services through the admistrative offices of the courts 

  • California's Office of the Courts 

One of the larger agencies with a wide range of functions. 

(3 of 5) 

  • Managing the Workload 

  • Case-flow management is court supervision of all cases filed in the court

    • An administrative process- sole concern is efficiency 

  • A court knows it has case-flow management problem when:

    • More cases are coming in than being resolved 

    • The “age” of the pending caseload exceeds ideal standards 

(4 of 5) 

An adjournment is a continuance of a scheduled event 

  • Too many leads to the scheduling of more cases; it is critical to control adjournments. 

( 5 of 5) 

The commission on Trial Court Performance Standards was created in 1987

  • Released measures and standards in 1980 

  • Five areas of performance

  • Access to Justice 

  • Expedition and timeless 

  • Equality,fairness,and integrity 

  • Independence and accountability 

  • Public trust and confidence