State Courts

History of State Courts

The Organization of US Courts is based on english common law

Colonial Courts

Followed english courts in form but not in substance. They were ill suited for needs of English colonists

Eventually the courts expanded to have diffrent duties, diffrent customs, religious practices, and patterns in commercial trade

Early American Courts

After the american revolution the function of the courts changed

  • Powers were reduced

  • Americans harbored suspicous over Engish Common Law

Northern courts focused on immigration, cultural and religious tensions

Southern courts dealed with tracking down escaped Slaves

Courts in Modernizing Society

The industrization following the civil war led to the judiciary system changing

  • Increases in population → more lawsuits + More Problems

  • The courts still reglected the agrarian society even though it was more urban

City courts were created to deal with urban cases

Specialized courts were made to deal with special civil cases

Trail Courts of Limited Jurisdiction: Lower Courts

Trail Courts of Limited Jurisdiction - the first level of state courts. AKA inferior courts or lower courts

  • US has more than 11,880 courts

  • 85% of all judicial bodies in the US

Some US Jurisdictions have one unified court system that does not use trail courts of limited jurisdiction. New York has around 1500 lower courts.

Cases in Lower Courts

Around 62 million cases a year are delt in the lower courts

  • Most are traffic cases

They often authorise search warrents, hold an initial appearence, apoint council, conduct preliminary hearing

  • The case is then transferred to a trail court (or a plea deal)

Most of the work involves nonfelony criminal cases and small claims of a civil nature, and traffic offenses in a jurisdiction

Nonfelony Criminal Cases

Misdemeanor - a crime punishable by a fine, imprisonment (local jail for less than 1 year) or both

  • Enacted by a state legistature and covers the entire state

Violations - Minor criminal offeses that are punishable by fines, probation, or a short jail term, typically less than 30 days

  • They are quasi-criminal (not considered true crimes regarding a criminal record)

Ordinance - A law enacted by a local government body for the regulation of some activity within the community

  • Only apply to the locality

  • The fines go to the local gov, not the state gov

It is typical for ordinances to prohibit the same type of conduct as state misdemeanors

Traffic Offenses

Traffic Offenses - A group of offenses, including infractions and minor misdemeanors, relating to the operation of self-propelled motor vehicles

  • Parking violations to improper equipment, but speeding is the most common

The volume of traffic cases has increasing (texas has the most)

Typically punishable by a fine

  • can make alot of revenue for local governments

  • Includes both the fines and fees

  • Pays for the court, prosecutors, and public defendors

Sometimes, different localities can become “speed traps”

  • It can be the only way to make money in small towns

  • Another way to make revenue without raising taxes

Traffic cameras are making it easer to find people violating traffic laws

  • Has been challanged in court by saying it violates their due process and innocent until proven guilty

    • over ridden due to them being civil, not criminal charges

DUIs are so serious that they are charged as misdemeanors. Repeat or extreme cases are prosecuted as felonies

Small Claims Civil Cases

Small Claims Court - A lower-level court whose jurisdiction is limited to a specific dollar amount, for example damages not exceeding $1,500

Each state has a different dollar amount for how much money counts as “small claims”

Major catagoies in this cases are

  • debt collections

  • land lord tennant disputes

  • Property damage

Many states have streamlined procedures in these courts by ending strict evidence rules and no trial by jury

They are less formal and less protracted

They count as 52% of the civil cases

Justice of the Peace Courts

Since the legal system of the US is county-based, and 80% of America is rural, in rural areas the lower courts are called “justice of the peace courts

Justice of the Peace (JP) - A low-level judge, sometimes without legal training, typically found in rural areas of some states, empowered to try petty civil and criminal cases and to conduct the preliminary stages of felony cases

A way to dispense simple and speedy justice for minor civil and criminal cases

JPs were criticised for their legal incompetence and its political leaning

  • in places that were developing into urban areas, the efforts to disband them were effective

Today, they are more professional and happen in a courthouse or government building

  • 14 states still do not require JPs to be trained lawyers

Some JPs are elected officials/mayors who work ex officio.

Requirements to be a JP:

  • US Citizenship

  • Local residency in the area

  • Some make you be over 18, mentally component, no criminal record

Has JP outlived its usefulness?

  • It is not a part of the state judiciary, only local gov who creates and funds them

Trial de novo - a new trial at a higher level of court

Many JPs have been replaced by magistrates

Lower Caseloads

There are higher crime rates in urban areas than there are in rural

This does not mean that rural areas have no crime

  • Rape has risen in rural areas to exceed those of urban areas

  • DUI and Fraud is more common

  • Illegal drug use is rising

All of this puts a stress on rural courts

The Rural settings can make dealing with crime harder

  • Less public transportation

  • Lack of substance abuse tratment centers

  • Tendancy to harbor hate groups, militia, and anti-goverment people

Lack of Resorces

Rural Courts have less federal funding + smaller tax base

  • court facilities are outdates and salaires are low

Because so few attorneys practice law in rural areas, the number of defense attorneys is small

Rural areas are hit the hardest when federal funding decreases, publically funded legal services

Familiarity

Rural areas courts are one on one while urban courts are more beueracratic

Often consists of the prosecutor, judge, lawyer representing the gov

5 or fewer sheriffs deputies and a single probation officer

The interactions are frequent and long term and have a long standing social/family network

  • Greater emphasis on informal mechanisms of social control vs urban being more formal

This familiarity can also create a culture of “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours”

  • court members often know eachother personally

  • Lack of independent judiciary and weak advercary process

  • Defendants who are “outsiders” may be at a disadvantage due to this close nature of the courts

Reforming JP Courts

Some reformers want to unify state courts into a 3-teir systems in order to abolish the JP system

  1. single trial court

  2. intermediate appellate court

  3. high state court of last resort

This would allow all judges to be lawyers and end the trial de novo system

  • In Gordon v Justice Court, the California supreme court decided it was in violation of federal law to allow a non-lawyer to preside over a criminal trial that could result in the incarceration of the defendant

  • The SCOTUS disagrees with california’s analysis of the 14th ammendment in North v Russel which is why JPs still exist in other states

The biggest opponent to ending JPs is the non-lawyers who don’t want their job to end, and the fact that they are redially available when formal courts can be miles away. JP courts are also seen as the “people’s Court” meaning they don’t need a lawyer

around 33% of JPs have limmitted Education levels to the extent that they are not capable of learning the necessary element o the law which could lead them to be repremanded by the Commission on Judicial Conduct

Some reforms could be having all JPs attend a training seminar, have them graduate from law school and pass the state bar.

Municipal Courts

Municipal Courts - a trail court of limited jurisdiction created by a local unit of government

The urban counterparts for JPs.

A bigger focus on an “assembly line” → keeping the docket moving

When defendants are arraigned, the municipal judges advice all of the defendants on the docket that day in a group of their constitutional rights.

Defense attorneys are rare in lower courts except for DUI prosecutions. The lack of defense attorneys creates the “informality” of these lower courts

  • In Argersinger v Hamlin the supreme court ruled that the defendant can not be subject to imprisonment unless they are provided with council

  • But often, there is not a defense attorney present

The defendants initial appearance is usually the final one

  • With misdemeanors, there are lots of guilty pleas, or they cannot raise enough money to have a defense attorney, so they simply plead guilty

Very few trials in municipal courts.

  • Right to a jury trial if the defendant can be punishment by imprisonment for more than 6 months

  • If there is a trial, it is usually a bench trial

Assembly-Line Justice and the Courtroom Work Group

Courtroom works together to keep things moving

Durring arrainment, the defendant is informed of the right to a court-appointed attorney

  • But if the hearing cannot be held for 2-3 weeks, the defendant will be held in jail

    • This lead to defendants waiving their right to council in order to get it over with

“Uncooperative” defendants can take up too much of the court’s time (talk to much)

  • Asking too many questions about your rights

  • Giving a detailed account of his alleged offense (2 minutes)

  • This can lead to having an sentance that was much longer than others

Sentencing in the Lower Courts

Since there are so many guilty pleas in the lower courts, it can often seem like a “sentencing institution” than a real trial court.

  • Focus is on rapid decisions about which sentence to impose

  • Fines, probation, jail

In Misdemeanor courts, the judges can choose alternative sanctions

  • Community service, victim restitution, placement into substance-abuse programs, mandatory counseling, Drivers Ed programs

  • Very few misdemeanor defendants are sent to jail

Sentencing involves both routinization and individualization

  • Judges see themselves as “doing justice” rather than following the law, leading to the alternative punishments that are fit for the crime

When choosing sentences, Judges look at the defendants criminal record and the nature of the crime

  • First time offenders rarely recieve jail time. Repeat offendars are given more severe sentances

  • The nature of the event is important (a low blood alcohol level vs high level for a DUI)

Problems of the Lower Courts

Reformers have criticized the lower courts

  • There is rarely an adversary model in the lower courts, as few defendants are represented by a defense attorney

  • Some defendants have been denied fundamental legal rights (right to a trail, impartial judge, presumption of innocence)

  • The speed of the sentences are not always in accordance with the law

There are 4 problem areas for the lower courts: Inadequate financing, inadequate facilities, lax procedures, and unbalanced caseloads

Inadequate Financing

Lower courts are funded locally

space populated counties and small municipalities lack funding

Even where there are funds, there is no guarantee that the local government will spend money on the courts

Inadequate Facilities

Court rooms are often crowded and noisy.

100 or more people waiting for their minute Infront of the judge

These courtrooms lack dignity and leave a bad impression

They are detrimental to the attitudes of the defendant, prosecutor, judge and others

Lax Court Procedures

Many do not have written rules for the conduct

Conventional book-keeping methods are often ignored

makes it hard to find out the effectiveness of the courts

Unbalanced Caseloads

Some courts have a ton of cases with a long backlog, but others have little to do

Because courts are locally controlled, there is no way to equalize the caseload

From state to state and county to county, there are discrepancies in the quality of justice and how it is rendered

Community Justice

Some reformers see court-community cooperation as a way to fix these courts

Target of Community justice is minor disputes between parties in ongoing relations

  • Domestic partners, neighbors, landlord-tenants

These private disputes are a constant source of cases for the court system, and the trials itself do not fix the underlying issue

These issues are civil, but the criminal justice system must deal with them

The goal is long term solutions

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative Dispute Resolution - Less adversarial means of settling disputes that may or may not involve a court

Alternative to going to court or trying to settle cases after they have been filed but before they are tried by a judge

Arbitration - A form of alternative Dispute Resolution for resolving legal disputes outside the courts in which arbitrators generally act similarly to judges, making decisions that can be binding or nonbinding

Mediation - A form of alternative Dispute Resolution in which a mediator acts, not as a judge, but rather as someone who facilitates discussion and resolution of the dispute

Community Courts

Courts are trying to be more responsive to the needs of their specific communities

The phrase “justice community” refers to the range of organizations and people within any specific locale who have a stake in the justice system

  • Judges, court personally, district attorneys, public defenders, private attorneys, pronation departments, law enforcement personnel, community organizers, business groups, social workers

Community Courts - Neighborhood-focused, problem-solving courts that deal with local crime and safety concerns.

  • Government sponsored

  • Received the bulk of their cases as a referral from the CJ agencies

  • Tries to improve the CJ system by removing minor cases from court.

    • simple assault, petty theft, criminal trespass

They convert criminal matters into civil ones by treating the cases as matters for discussion between the individual disputes

Trail Courts of General Jurisdiction: Major Trial Courts

The second level of state courts

Trial Courts of General Jurisdiction - A trial court responsible for major criminal and civil cases

Sometimes called Major Trial Courts. Other names are district, circuit or superior

General Jurisdiction means that they have the legal authority to decide all matters not specifically designated to lower courts

Geographic jurisdictions fall along political boundaries (counties)

  • In most states, trail courts of general jurisdiction are grouped together with judicial districts/circuits

In Rural areas:

  • are grouped into multiple adjoining countries. They hear a wide variety of cases

In Highly populated areas:

  • Have only one circuit or district for the area

  • Judges are also specialists who hear only one certain type of case (family, juvenile)

Majority of cases happens in the state courts, not federal

  • Litigants i federal courts are big businesses and governmental bodies

  • Litigants in state courts are individuals and small businesses

State courts deal with street crimes

Most cases do not go to trail, end with a plea bargain

  • not guilty vs innocence, but what penalty to apply

Public thinks of felony crimes with violent (murder, robbery, rape)

  • 90% of criminal violations involve nonviolent crimes and drug offenses

  • Drug offenses account for 1/3 of all arrests

    • Some states have started to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of weed (violation, not a crime)

Intermediate Courts of Appeals

Immediate Court of Appeals - Judicial bodies falling between the highest, or supreme, tribunal and the trial court; created to relieve the jurisdiction’s highest court of hearing a large number of cases

24 states organize their ICAs statewide, while the rest organize them on a regional basis.

They hear both civil and criminal cases in most states

They use a rotating panel of 3 judges

Handle the bulk of the appeals cases

  • Can lead to them being overworked

They review trial to make sure that the law was followed and that it was fair

State High Courts of Last Resort

State High Court of Last Resort - general term for the highest court in a state

The number of judges the courts have van very from 5 to 9 (PA has 7)

Do not use panels in making decisions, the entire court decides on each case

  • They have a limited amount of jurisdiction when disciplining lawyers and judges

In states without ICAs, the state high court of last resort has no power over which cases are on its docket

Selects only a few cases to hear, but they tend to have broad legal and political significance

In most states with death penalty, if the judge imposes the death sentence, the case is immediately appealed to the State High Court (bypassing the ICA)

A review board for matters involving interpretation of state law

Court Unification

Some reformers view the multiplicity of the courts to be inefficient and inequitable.

Key Components

Unified Court System - A simplified state trial court structure with rule making centered in the supreme court, system governance authority vested in the chief justice of the supreme court, and state funding of the judiciary system under a statewide judicial budget.

Wants to shift judicial admin from local control to a centralized management. The authority would be centered at each states capital. The Court Unification would have 5 principles

Simplified court Structure

A simple, unform court structure for the entire state

minor and specialized courts would be combined into one county-level court

Would end the variations of courts between counties

Involves 3 tiers

  1. single trial court

  2. Intermediate court of appeals (due to the volume of appeals)

  3. A state court of last resort

Centralized Administration

It would embody a genuine hierarchy of authority, with local courts required to follow the policies of the central office

Centralized Rule Making

the state high court of last resort would have all power to adapt uniform rules to be followed by all courts in the state

It would shift control from the legislature to the judges and lawyers

Centralized Judicial Budgeting

Would give the state judicial administrator the authority to prepare a single budget for the entire state judiciary and send it directly to the legislature

Lower courts would be dependent on the state high court of last resort for their money and would be unable to lobby local representatives.

Statewide Financing

Although states are mandated by state law, they are financed by local governments

Since they are not a top priority for local gov, they often get less than adequate funding.

Since state gov has more money, it would be better in suporting the courts

  • But ever since the great recession, many states run a significant budget deficit, which would also harm courts funding

Analysis

The logic of court reform has been called into question before.

Some think it hampered creative thinking about how court reform should be.

The Court Unification idea does not allow for a desirable diversity.

Court Reform also focuses on the abstract ideas of how court organize but neglect the day to day activities

Problem Solving Courts

Modern Court Reform focuses on improving the quality of justice, not reorganizing everything. This is true with problem-solving courts, which focuses on the underlying issue of the individual appearing in court, and collaborates with service providers.

An example of this is drug courts, mental health courts, domestic violence court, child support court, prisoner reentry court, prostitution court, gun court

Therapeutic Jurisprudence - Judicial bodies such as drug courts that stress helping defendants in trouble through nonadversarial procedures.

They use Intermediate intervention, nonadversarial adjudication, hands on judicial involvement, tratment programs with clear rules and structured goals, and a team approach that combines the judge, prosecutor, defense, treatment provider, and correctional staff

Drug Courts

Drug Courts - Specialty courts with jurisdiction over cases involving illegal substances. Typically stress treatment rather than punishment

Created in response to increases in caseload and changes in drug cases, due to the “war on drugs”

Views defendants as people with an addiction problem, not as criminals

They have grown to be an important part of the CJ system

Effectiveness of Drug Courts

Early evaluations found success rates for drug courts

Sophisticated evaluations have highlighted the complex impact of drug courts

Most studies show that

  • Overall treatment retentions is substantially better than in other community based treatment programs for offenders

  • Lower recidivism rates from drug court participants than for comparison groups

  • A net cost savings to the criminal justice system by providing offenders with treatment that is much less expensive than incarcerating them

Drug Courts are not effected with DUIs

Juvenile Drug Courts

One of the most popular means of diversionary treatment within the juvenile justice system

Provide intensive and continuous supervision of participants to make sure that they are following the courts rulings

  • Treatment program participation

  • School attendance

  • drug teseting

  • community service

  • court appearances

Follows a behavioral based system of rewards and sanctions

The positive effects of juvenile drug courts can end when the court supervision ends, especially when the kid is involved with other criminal offenses or mental health issues

Domestic Violence Courts

Domestic violence has become a private family matter to a significant social problem

Emphasis is on integration, and involves the following

  • a dedicated judge who presides over all phases of domestic violence caes and related cases are consolidated

  • Ongoing monitoring by judge and staff enables the court to hold offenders accountable

  • Resource coordinator prepares info for the judge as the liaison with the community

  • On site victim-advocate serves as the primary linkage to social service agencies

  • Emphasis on a coordinated community response, info sharing, education and coordination on all levels of CJ system

225 specialized domestic violence courts

Evidence suggests that it is successful at reducing re-offenses of domestic violence, but some has mixed results

Mental Health Courts

The Mentally ill are overrepresented in the CJ system

14.5 - 30% of those in jail are mentally ill, and they are more likely to re-renter the CJ system

Key features are:

  • specialized Court docket

  • Metal health screening is available for acceptable candadits

  • Mentally ill defendants voluntarily enroll in the court, which uses therapeutic jurisprudence rather than the adversarial style

  • Judges supervise a community-based treatment plan which involves a team of court staff and mental health professionals

  • Judge and probation officials review the progress of each defendant

Found to be effective

Technology Shapes the Courtrooms of the Future

In Modern courtrooms, technology plays an integral part of the design

Evidence cameras project images of paper documents, laptop connections can present evidence without carrying it into the courtroom

Judges can sometimes resolve disputes through electronic communications without the lawyer and parties being physically present

Consequences of Court Organization

Decentralization and Choice of Courts

the US has 51 legal systems (federal courts and separate courts in the 50 states and US territories)

  • Sometimes, lawyers try to maneuver a case to be heard in a court that is perceived to be favorable to their clients.

Local Control and Local Corrpution

the 50 state court systems are actually structured on a local basis

  • The staff is all recruited from the local community and therefore represent the sentiments of that community

  • Applications of “state” law can have a “local” flavor

    • Guns in rural areas vs urban have different attitudes

The locality of these has the advantage of linking courts to the people they serve, and it can be an incubator of corruption and injustice.

The Police and courts can be in the pocket of the local economic elite.

Uneven Court Financing

Only a few states have adopted statewide financing of courts.

Most are financied by state taxes, local taxes, court fees and fines

Durring the 2008 financial cricis resulted in cutbacks to court funding

  • Can cause delays in finalizing divorces, custody battes, lawsuits

Courts also face long-term limitations in designing new programs to respond to social problems (drug courts, domestic violence courts)