Comprehensive Notes on Judicial Institutions and Legal Systems

Academic and Career Strategies in Law and Policy

• Logic and Academic Preparation

  • Logic is described as a "dry" but essential class that teaches a specific way of thinking. It is highly recommended for students in psychology, philosophy, or those planning on legal careers.

  • For the LSAT (Law School Admission Test), logic training is vital. Many questions contain "window dressing" designed to confuse the test-taker; logic allows one to ignore irrelevant information and focus on the abstract relationships between concepts.

  • Strategy for reading academic and legal texts: Circle the most important elements and cross out "jumbo wumbo words" (unnecessary jargon). Rewording complex language into personal, understandable terms is a key skill for higher education and grad school.

• Advice on Graduate School

  • The PhD Strategy: Students are advised to avoid paying for masters degrees. Many professors suggest applying to PhD programs; if a student decides not to finish the PhD, they often receive a master's degree for free after completing the initial years of the program.

  • Law School/Grad School Hybrids: Schools like UC Berkeley offer concurrent degree programs (MD/JD). Other programs, such as those at UC San Diego, focus on international law and policy.

  • Faculty Mentorship: David Fortunato at the UC San Diego policy school is noted as a potential mentor for graduate students, as he is currently seeking students to join his strategic committee.

  • Professional Experience: Taking time off during COVID-19 to work (e.g., with juveniles transitioning from detention to homes or tutoring students with behavioral issues) can provide valuable perspective before committing to a specific legal field like criminal, medical malpractice, or immigration law.

Understanding Institutions

• Douglas North’s Definition of Institutions

  • Institutions are the "humanly devised constraints that shape political, economic, and social interactions."

  • They are often referred to as the "rules of the game."

  • Institutions are slow to change but ever-evolving; they shape human behavior while being shaped by humans over time.

• Formal vs. Informal Institutions

  • Formal Institutions: Codified, written rules. Examples include a course syllabus (e.g., $20\%$ of a grade dictated by a TA, $20\%$ by attendance), electoral systems, and the US Constitution.

  • Informal Institutions: Norms and expectations. Examples include classroom behavior (students sitting in the same seats daily to avoid disrupting the "disequilibrium") and racial group attitudes toward state participation.

• Mass Behavior vs. Institutions

  • Mass behavior refers to the actions and attitudes of the electorate or general population (e.g., polling formerly incarcerated people).

  • Typical political science studies use surveys and statistical models to analyze mass behavior but often miss the impact of institutions (e.g., how differing prison systems in Texas vs. California affect those survey results).

Judicial and Criminal Justice Institutions

• Judicial Institutions: Systems of rules, the court system, and norms that structure the enforcement of justice or legal disputes.

• Criminal Justice Institutions: A subset of judicial institutions specifically focused on crime, corrections, and the distribution of punishment.

• Plea Bargaining as an Institution:

  • This occurs when a defendant pleads guilty to receive a lower sentence, effectively exiting the formal judicial process to secure a preferred outcome.

  • It is often the result of institutional setups that make it the "best outcome" for people, even if it circumvents the intended judicial trial process.

The United States Constitution and the Judiciary

• Article III (Section 1 and 2):

  • In contrast to the long sections regarding the legislature, the section on the judiciary is extremely short (about one page or five to six paragraphs).

  • It establishes one Supreme Court.

  • It grants Congress the power to create lower courts.

  • It defines the duration of judicial appointments as lasting during "good behavior" (effectively lifetime appointments).

  • It establishes the "Supremacy Clause," meaning the court's word is final on certain matters.

  • It specifies that the Chief Justice must preside over treason cases.

• Judicial Review

  • Definition: The power of a country's courts to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of government and determine their consistency with the constitution.

  • Origin: Judicial review is not explicitly codified in the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted this power to itself through the decision in Marbury v. Madison.

  • Types of Review:

    1. Statutory Review: Interpreting specific laws based on congressional intent.

    2. Constitutional Review: Determining if a law is consistent with the Constitution.

• Marbury v. Madison (1803)

  • Context: Outgoing President John Adams made "midnight appointments" to pack the courts with ideologically similar judges before Thomas Jefferson took office.

  • The Dispute: William Marbury did not receive his commission letter. Secretary of State James Madison, under Jefferson’s orders, refused to deliver it.

  • The Strategic Outcome: Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that while Marbury was entitled to the commission, the court did not have the jurisdiction to force the delivery because the law granting that jurisdiction was unconstitutional.

  • Result: This allowed the Court to avoid a direct conflict with Jefferson (who didn't want the judge appointed) while simultaneously establishing the principle that the Court has the final say on the legality of laws.

Comparative Legal Systems

• Common Law vs. Civil Law

• Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial Procedures

• Adversarial System:

  • Judges are neutral arbiters ruling on party decisions.

  • Lawyers control the gathering and presentation of evidence.

  • Goal: "Winning through persuasion."

  • Relies on oral argumentation and cross-examination.

  • Burden of proof rests primarily on the prosecution.

• Inquisitorial System:

  • The judge is an active investigator who questions witnesses.

  • Lawyers assist the judge but have little control over evidence.

  • Goal: "Establish what actually happened" (truth-seeking).

  • Document-centered rather than performance-centered.

  • Burden of proof is shared across both sides.

Judicial Behavior and Precedent

• Stare Decisis: Translated as "to stand by things decided."

  • Vertical Stare Decisis: Trial courts must follow the decisions of the appeals court, and appeals courts must follow the Supreme Court.

  • Horizontal Stare Decisis: A court's respect for its own past decisions (e.g., the Supreme Court following a prior Supreme Court ruling).

• Models of Selection:

  • Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

  • Previously, there was an informal norm that nominees would be confirmed regardless of ideology, but this norm changed around 2008.

Criminal vs. Civil Law Procedures

• Criminal Law:

  • The government (DA/Prosecutor) takes up the case against a defendant.

  • Focus: Crime, correction, and punishment.

  • Burden of Proof: "Beyond a reasonable doubt."

• Civil Law:

  • Private parties (Plaintiff vs. Defendant) engage in disputes like personal injury or breach of contract.

  • Focus: Usually monetary outcomes/restitutions.

  • Burden of Proof: "Preponderance of evidence."

• Probability in Law:

  • Preponderance of Evidence: Often defined as a greater than $\text{50}\%$ chance that the claim is true (P(\text{True}) > 0.5).

  • Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: A much higher, though subjectively defined, probability threshold.

  • Mathematical/Frequentist Definition of Probability: $\text{Probability} = \frac{\text{Total Number of Events}}{\text{Total Possible Events}}$.

  • Bayesian/Subjective View: Probability as an individual's subjective assessment that is updated as new information/evidence is received.

Questions & Discussion

• Discussion on System Preference:

  • Student A: Argues the adversarial system is better for finding truth because the judge might be biased if they lead the investigation. Two biased parties (defense and prosecution) arguing can balance each other out.

  • Student B: Supports the adversarial system but only if jury selection is improved. Juries are often uneducated on the law or disinterested, which affects the outcome of "persuasion."

  • Student C (International Perspective): Argues that preferences are often based on where one grew up (culture-centric). In the German inquisitorial system, a panel of three judges often works together (one main judge, two associates), which may reduce individual bias.

• Specific Cases Mentioned:

  • Amanda Knox: Accused of murder in Italy (inquisitorial system). The argument was that the court was influenced by public outrage and political pressure rather than just the facts.

  • Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard: Used as an example of how media perception and high-budget "persuasion" in an adversarial system can sway an outcome even against existing court findings.

  • German Subletting Case: A lawyer friend of a student worked on a fraud case involving government housing where the judges reached a standstill because they could not agree on prosecution, leading to the case being halted unless another crime was committed.