Court Structure and Personnel

State Court Systems

Each state maintains its own court organization and structure.
There are 50 state trial and appellate systems, with separate courts for D.C., Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories.
Usually, three or more separate court systems exist within each state jurisdiction.
States can create as many courts as they wish and name them as they like.
States can establish specialized courts that handle a single legal matter.
There is a great deal of diversity in court organization from one state to the next.
State courts handle a wide variety of cases and regulate numerous personal behaviors, ranging from homicide to property maintenance.

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

State courts of limited jurisdiction are known by various names.
Jurisdiction is limited to minor or less serious civil and criminal cases.
Restricted in the types of cases they may hear, handling misdemeanor criminal infractions, violations of municipal ordinances, traffic violations, and civil suits in which damages involve less than a certain amount of money (usually $1,000$ ).
In criminal matters, they hear misdemeanors such as shoplifting, disorderly conduct, or simple assault.
Their sanctioning power is also limited to fines, community sentencing, or incarceration in the county jail for up to a year.
They conduct arraignments, preliminary hearings, and bail hearings in felony cases before transferring the cases to superior courts.
Some states separate limited jurisdiction courts into those that handle civil cases only and those that handle criminal cases.
Special courts, such as juvenile, family, and probate courts, are included in the category of courts of limited jurisdiction.
State lawmakers may create specialized courts focusing on treatment and care for special-needs offenders.
One common type is the family or juvenile court, which handles custody cases, delinquency, and issues involving children (discussed further in Chapter 15).
Approximately $15,000$ limited jurisdiction courts handle about 65% of all incoming caseloads in state courts, exceeding 60 million cases per year.
Limited jurisdiction courts are often accused of providing assembly-line justice.
The rule of the day is "handling the situation" and resolving the dispute.

Courts of General Jurisdiction

Approximately $2,000$ courts of general jurisdiction exist in the United States, called "felony," "superior," "supreme," "county," and "circuit" courts.
They handle more serious felony cases (e.g., murder, rape, robbery) and civil cases in which damages are over a specified amount.
They may also be responsible for reviewing cases on appeal from courts of limited jurisdiction.
They can base their decision on a review of the transcript or grant a new trial (trial de novo process).
Changes in these are watched closely because serious crime is of great public concern.
They are typically organized in judicial districts or circuits, based on a political division such as a county or a group of counties.
Some separate criminal and civil cases, with some specializing in civil matters and others maintaining a caseload that is exclusively criminal.
In 10 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico, general and limited courts have consolidated their jurisdictions, creating a unified court system.

Specialized Courts

A growing phenomenon in the United States is the creation of specialized courts, focusing on one type of criminal act.
All cases within the jurisdiction that involve this crime type are funneled to the specialized court for prompt resolution.
Specialized courts differ from traditional courts in several key respects, elevating outcomes above process and emphasizing judicial monitoring.
They require informed decision-making, collaboration with public and private agencies, and nontraditional roles for court personnel.
Specialized courts aim for systemic change in the criminal justice system.
Drug courts began in Florida to address prison overcrowding due to drug-involved offenders.
They provide primary jurisdiction over substance abuse and drug trafficking cases, placing nonviolent first offenders into intensive treatment programs.
There are nearly $3,000$ drug courts across the United States, linking the justice system with health services and drug treatment providers.
Mental health courts focus on mental health treatment to reduce reoffending, demanding active participation by the defendant and establishing a direct link between the illness and the crime committed.
Intervention must occur quickly, with close monitoring by case managers.
Most provide voluntary outpatient or inpatient mental health treatment, with the possibility of dismissal of charges or reduced sentencing.
Community courts focus on quality-of-life offenses and providing "accessible justice" for residents, often with on-site services available.
Domestic violence courts coordinate with medical, social service, and treatment providers, promoting effective outcomes through system-wide collaboration.
Gun courts minimize delay and ensure tough penalties for gun offenders, emphasizing education about gun violence and safety, often targeting juvenile gun offenders.
Specialized courts also deal with homelessness, sex offenses, parole reentry, and teen bullying.

Appellate Court

State criminal appeals are heard in the appellate courts in the 50 states and D.C.
Each state has at least one court of last resort, usually called a state supreme court, which reviews issues of law and fact appealed from the trial courts.
A few states have two high courts, one for civil appeals and one for criminal cases.
Many states have established intermediate appellate courts (IACs) to review decisions by trial courts and administrative agencies before they reach the supreme court stage.
Almost all states have at least one permanent IAC.
Appeals from criminal cases are the most common types of appeals, with the others arising primarily from civil judgments and administrative agency decisions.
State courts have witnessed a fairly steady and high caseload in recent years.
The number of judges and support staff has not kept pace, leading to the increased use of intermediate courts to screen cases.
Most states have at least two trial courts and two appellate courts, but they differ about where jurisdiction found.

Model State Court Structure

Every state has a tiered court organization (lower, upper, and appellate courts) but varies in delegating responsibility.
The court organizations of Texas and New York are complex, while California has unified its trial courts into a single system with fewer types of courts.
Texas separates its highest appellate divisions into civil and criminal courts, while New York features separate intermediate appellate courts with different geographic jurisdictions and an independent family court.
California unified their trial courts into a single system, some with as few as three different types of courts.

Federal Courts

The legal basis for the federal court system is in Article 3, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Federal courts have jurisdiction over U.S. laws, treaties, admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, and controversies between states or citizens of different states.
State courts have jurisdiction over all legal matters unless they involve a federal criminal statute or civil suit between citizens of states or between a citizen and a federal agency.
The federal government has a three-tiered hierarchy of court jurisdiction: U.S. district courts, U.S. courts of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

District Courts

U.S. district courts are the trial courts of the federal system.
They have jurisdiction involving violations of federal laws, including civil rights abuses, interstate vehicle transportation, and kidnappings.
They may hear cases on citizenship and rights of aliens.
Jurisdiction will occasionally overlap that of state courts.
Federal district courts hear cases in which one state sues a resident in another state, where one state sues another, or where the federal government is a party in a suit.
A single judge presides over criminal trials; a defendant may request a jury trial.
Federal district courts were organized by Congress in the Judicial Act of 1789.
Today 94 independent courts are in operation.
Each state has from one to four district courts, and D.C. has one for itself.

Federal Appeals Courts

There are 13 U.S. courts of appeals, referred to as "U.S. circuit courts."
This name derived from judges riding the circuit and regularly hear cases.
Empowered to review federal and state appellate court cases on substantive and procedural issues involving rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Circuit courts do not retry cases or determine whether the facts support conviction or dismissal.
Instead, they analyze judicial interpretations of the law and reflect on the constitutional issues involved.
The U.S. Supreme Court has tried to limit appeals being filed by prison inmates.

The U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is the nation's highest appellate body and the court of last resort.
It is composed of nine members appointed for lifetime terms by the president, with Congressional approval.
The size of the Court is set by statute.
The Court has discretion over most cases it will consider and may choose to hear only those it deems important.
The Court chooses around 300 of the 5,000 cases that are appealed each year; less than half receive full opinions.
The Supreme Court is the only court established by constitutional mandate and decides grave social and political issues.
The justices shape the future meaning of the U.S. Constitution, and their decisions identify citizens' rights and liberties.
When the Court rules on a case, the outcome becomes a precedent that must be honored by lower courts.
A landmark decision grants a particular litigant a right that all similarly situated clients must be given the same right.
The Court has actively reviewed actions by states and their courts and reinforced the Court's power to make the supreme law of the land.
Today, most cases before the Supreme Court involve federal questions, usually of a constitutional nature.
The justices have discretion to select cases they will review for a decision. For a writ to be granted, ordinarily four justices must agree to hear the case (rule of four).
After the Supreme Court decides to hear a case, it reviews written and oral arguments. The written materials are referred to as legal briefs.
The justices meet in a "case conference," discuss the case, and vote to reach a decision.
In reaching a decision, the Supreme Court reevaluates and reinterprets state statutes, the Constitution, and previous case decisions.
Based on a review of the case, the Court either affirms or reverses the decision of the lower court.
When the justices reach a decision, the chief justice assigns someone of the majority group to write the opinion.
Another justice normally writes a dissenting, or minority, opinion.
When the case is finished, it becomes the law of the land and added to the existing body of law and guide its future development.
The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have impacted the reform of the criminal justice system and changed the day-by-day operations.

Court Congestion

The U.S. court system has been overloaded by the millions of cases that are brought each year.
State court systems handle about 100 million new cases annually: Civil cases (19.2%), Domestic relations cases (5.8%), Criminal cases (20.9%), Juvenile cases (1.5%), and Traffic cases (52.6%).
There are approximately 87,000 criminal cases filed in the district courts each year and approximately 49,000 criminal appeals each year.
Congestion makes people wait too long for resolution, costs money, and can violate the Sixth Amendment.
Events such as the COVID-19 outbreak can cause delays.
Causes of trial delay and court congestion include:
- Rapidly increasing populations in some states.
- Communities attempting to control crime by prosecuting petty offenses.
- The law becoming more complex with technological issues.
- Efforts to reform the criminal law leading to overloading courts.
- Increased civil litigation.
Relief may be found in better administrative and management techniques and by unifying state courts into a single administrative structure.

The Judiciary

The judge is the senior officer in a court of law and is authorized to hear and decide cases.
During trials, the judge rules on the appropriateness of conduct, settles questions of evidence and procedure, and guides the questioning of witnesses.
In a jury trial, the judge instructs jurors on what evidence is proper to examine and formally charges the jury.
Beyond the stated duties, the trial judge has extensive control and influence over other agencies of the court: probation, the court clerk, court reporters, the public defender, and the district attorney's office.
Probation and the clerk may be under the judge's explicit control.
The attitudes of the county or district court judge greatly influence the way a probation department is run and how its decisions are made.
Police and prosecutors are directly influenced by the judge, whose sentencing discretion affects the arrest and charging processes.
The district attorney's office may also be sensitive to judicial attitudes.
The judge considers requests by police and prosecutors for leniency (or severity) in sentencing.
Qualifications for judgeships vary from state to state and court to court.
Typically, judges must be a state resident, licensed to practice law, a member of the state bar association, and at least 25 and less than 70 years of age.
Municipal or town court judges may not have a legal background.
There is concern about judicial qualifications, and agencies have been created to improve the quality of the judiciary.
Many methods are used to select judges.
In some jurisdictions, the governor appoints judges.
Another form of judicial selection is popular election.
Many states have adopted some form of the Missouri Plan (merit selection) to select appellate court judges.

Judicial Alternatives

Increased judicial caseloads have prompted the use of alternatives to the traditional judge.
Parties commonly agree to hire a retired judge or other neutral party to expedite civil cases.
Other jurisdictions have created quasi-judicial officers, such as referees or magistrates, to relieve the traditional judge.
The Magistrate Act of 1968 created a new type of judicial officer in the federal district court system to handle pretrial duties.
Some jurisdictions use part-time judges, and federal judges enjoy "senior status" and work part-time.
Every state has a means of settling disputes with alternatives to litigation, known as alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which has spread rapidly as court delays remain and legal expenses have increased.
Two common forms of ADR are arbitration and mediation.
Arbitration: a simplified version of a trial with no discovery and simplified rules of evidence.
Either both sides select an arbitrator, or each selects one arbitrator, and the two select a third to make up a panel of arbitrators.
Arbitration hearings are short, and the opinions are not made public.
Arbitration is often binding.
Mediation: an informal process where mediators help disputing parties reach a satisfactory agreement.
The mediator has no power to impose a decision on the parties.
Mediation is often used before arbitration, and if an agreement cannot be reached, the parties may elect to pursue arbitration.
Still other forms of ADR have emerged, such a summary jury trial, in which people from a real jury pool are selected and asked to decide a matter following a 1-day trial.
These approaches are more common in the civil context.

Judicial Decision Making

In an ideal world, judges would base their decisions only on the law; researchers have long found that judicial decisions are influenced by factors such as attitudes, ideology, opinions, demographic characteristics, and reelection.
Judges' sex and race may influence their decisions as well.
If a judge were facing reelection, this might factor into their decision making.

The Prosecutor

The prosecutor is one of the two adversaries who face each other every day in the criminal trial process and represents the state's interest and serves as the "people's attorney."
They focus the power of the state on those who disobey the law and releases them after deciding that the evidence at hand does not constitute proof of a crime.
Prosecutors' primary duty is to enforce the criminal law their fundamental obligation as an attorney is to seek justice as well as convict those who are guilty.
The senior prosecutor determines and shapes the manner in which justice is exercised in society.
The political nature of the prosecutor's office can heavily influence decision making.
There are more than 2,300 state court prosecutor's offices employing 79,000 people.
Most of these offices are relatively small.

Types of Prosecutors

In the federal system, United States attorneys serve as the nation's principal litigators and are appointed by the president.
Their subordinates, assistant United States attorneys, are tasked with prosecuting criminal defendants in federal district court.
At the state and county levels, the attorney general and the district attorney, respectively, are the chief prosecutorial officers.
The bulk of the criminal prosecution and staff work is performed by attorneys, investigators, and clerical personnel.
In urban jurisdictions, the structure of the district attorney's office is often specialized, with separate divisions for felonies, misdemeanors, and trial and appeal assignments. In rural offices, chief prosecutors handle many of the criminal cases themselves.

The Prosecutor in Society

Prosecutors are often criticized for bargaining justice away, for using their positions as a stepping-stone to higher political office, and for failing to investigate or dismissing criminal cases.
Local, state, and federal prosecutors have become aggressive in attacking particular crime problems.
Federal prosecutors have made progress in the war against insider trading and securities fraud, using information, wiretaps, and racketeering laws.
Some argue that the government may be going overboard in its efforts to punish white-collar criminals, especially for crimes that are the result of negligent business practices, not intentional criminal conspiracy.
Prosecutors are sharpening their working relationships with both the law enforcement community and the general public, which are key to greater prosecutorial effectiveness.
When it comes to processing offenses, the prosecutor relies on law enforcement officers to provide and initiate the formal complaint.
With more serious offenses, the prosecutor's office may become directly involved in the criminal investigation.
Some district attorneys' offices carry out special investigations of organized crime, corruption of public officials, and corporate and white-collar crime, as well as vice and drug offenses.
In either case, the prosecutor is required to maintain regular contact with the police department.
Often the prosecutor advises the police officer about the legal issues in a given case.
The prosecutor may also assist the officer by limiting unnecessary court appearances, informing the officer of the disposition of the case, and preparing the officer for pretrial appearances.
Prosecutors help train police officers in securing warrants, making legal arrests, and interrogating persons in custody.
Community prosecution recognizes that crime reduction is built on community partnerships.
The traditional prosecutorial model is case-oriented and reactive to crime, not problem-oriented and proactive.
Lack of direct involvement by prosecutors in the community and an arrest-generated, case-oriented approach leads to an inefficient allocation of criminal justice resources.
The main components include placing prosecutors in selected communities, increasing communication with police and community groups, and using prosecutorial resources to solve community problems.
One of the greatest challenges facing community prosecution is evaluating its effectiveness.

Prosecutorial Discretion

The prosecutor decides whether to bring a case to trial or to dismiss it outright.
This power represents the control and power the prosecutor has over an individual's liberty.
Prosecutors exercise considerable discretion in deciding whether to charge the accused with a crime.
The prosecutor can exercise discretion in serious cases.

The Exercise of Discretion

Prosecutors have broad discretion in the exercise of their duties that is subject to few limitations.
This discretion is rarely reviewed by the courts unless the prosecutor violates a defendant's constitutional rights.
Deciding whether to charge a person with a crime is very difficult.
A host of factors influence the prosecutor's charging decision.
The prosecutor has the opportunity to select alternative actions if they are more appropriate.
The proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion can improve the criminal justice process by preventing unnecessarily rigid implementation of the criminal law.
Too much discretion can lead to abuses and the abandonment of law.

Overzealous Prosecution

Prosecutors sometimes go "too far" in their efforts to secure convictions against criminals, for example, by using the power of selective or pretextual prosecution.
Punishments for overzealous prosecutors vary depending on the misconduct but can include private admonition or reprimand, public reprimand, suspension from law practice, and permanent disbarment.

The Defense Attorney

The defense attorney is the counterpart of the prosecuting attorney in the criminal process.
The accused has a constitutional right to counsel, and if the defendant cannot afford an attorney, the state must provide one.
The American Bar Association, the National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have assisted in recruiting able lawyers to do criminal defense work.

The Role of the Criminal Defense Attorney

The defense attorney is obligated to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and to observe the requirements of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in the defense of a client.
The defense attorney performs many functions while representing the accused in the criminal process, such as investigating the incident, interviewing the client, discussing the matter with the prosecutor.
Criminal defense attorneys face many role conflicts because they are viewed as prime movers in an adversarial process.

Ethical Issues

Ethical responsibilities of lawyers can involve conflicting obligations to their client and profession.
Lawyers are required to keep their clients' statements confidential