8.2 The Basic Principles of the American Judicial System
8.2a Jurisdiction
Definition of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction refers to the power "to speak the law".
Before a court can hear a case, it must have jurisdiction over the persons involved or the subject matter.
All courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have limitations on their jurisdiction.
Geographic Jurisdiction
Geographic jurisdiction is a limitation where a court can exercise authority over residents of a certain area.
For example, a state trial court typically holds jurisdiction over crimes in a specific area like a county or district.
The highest state court has authority across the entire state, and the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction nationwide.
Criminal jurisdiction is mainly determined by legislation, identifying what acts are illegal within specific geographic boundaries.
Federal Versus State Jurisdiction
Most criminal laws are state laws, thus most criminal trials take place in state courts.
Many acts are illegal under both state and federal law, leading to concurrent jurisdiction when both court systems can prosecute the same crime.
Example:
Holden Matthews faced charges in both federal and Louisiana state courts for arson.
He ultimately served his sentence in federal prison.
State Versus State Jurisdiction
Multiple states can claim jurisdiction over the same actions based on state laws and circumstances.
Example:
If a crime occurs at the state line, both states can claim jurisdiction.
States may also establish jurisdiction over residents committing crimes in other states.
Extradition is the formal process for returning fugitives to the state where they are charged.
Multiple Trials
Concurrent jurisdiction can lead to multiple trials in different states.
Example:
Harvey Weinstein was tried in both New York and California for similar sex crimes.
While viewed by some as thrifty use of taxpayer money, it allows for local victims to seek closure in their cases.
International Jurisdiction
Countries can create criminal laws applicable within their borders.
The U.S. has extradition treaties to transfer suspected criminals across borders.
Example:
Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzman was extradited from Mexico to the U.S. for drug trafficking charges.
Some nations resist extradition despite treaties; cases like that of Ahlam al-Tamimi demonstrate this issue.
Cybersecurity and Jurisdiction
The Internet blurs geographic boundaries, leading to jurisdictional challenges.
U.S. law claims jurisdiction over crimes targeting American citizens regardless of where they occurred.
Example:
Iranian suspects Savandi and Mansouri conducted cyber crimes affecting U.S. citizens but remain beyond U.S. legal reach.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Defines the types of cases a court can hear.
Courts of general jurisdiction can address serious felonies and civil cases without limitations.
Courts of limited jurisdiction (lower courts) manage misdemeanors and civil matters below a defined monetary threshold (e.g., $1,000).
Specific courts exist for particular crimes, such as drug courts, to manage cases efficiently.
The military holds jurisdiction over active duty personnel for crimes, irrespective of duty status, usually through court-martial.
8-2b Learning Objective
Explain the difference between trial and appellate courts.
Trial Courts
Courts of original jurisdiction are trial courts, where almost every case begins.
In trial courts, a trial (or a guilty plea) occurs, and a judge imposes a sentence if the defendant is found guilty.
Trial courts are designed to determine questions of fact.
Focus on establishing what events occurred that are relevant to the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Appellate Courts
Appellate courts have appellate jurisdiction and act as reviewing courts.
Cases can be brought before appellate courts only on appeal by one of the parties in the trial court.
Appellate courts do not use juries or witnesses in their decisions.
Judges decide if the lower court’s ruling should be affirmed or reversed.
If reversed, the case may be remanded (sent back to the original court for a new trial).
Appellate judges present written explanations for their decisions, known as opinions, which form the basis for much precedent in the criminal justice system.
Key Distinctions
Appellate courts do not determine guilt or innocence; they make judgments on questions of procedure.
Focus is on questions of law and they normally accept facts as established by the trial court.
Rarely will appellate courts question a jury’s decision, primarily reviewing the process of how facts and evidence were presented to the jury, looking for errors.
8-2c Learning Objective
Explain the structure and functioning of the dual court system in the United States.
Overview of the Dual Court System
The U.S. system of federalism separates the authority of the federal government and the governments of the fifty states.
Each jurisdiction has its own court system, leading to a distinct organizational structure.
The separation results in what is known as the dual court system.
This includes both federal and state courts operating as distinct yet parallel entities.
Figure 8.1: The Dual Court System
A visual representation of the federal and state court systems functioning separately but interconnectedly.
Federal courts include:
U.S. Courts of Appeals
U.S. District Courts
Specialized U.S. Courts (e.g., bankruptcy courts, tax court)
State courts comprise:
State Courts of Appeals
State Trial Courts of General Jurisdiction
Local Trial Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
Jurisdictional Limits
Both federal and state courts have limited jurisdiction.
Federal courts handle cases involving violations of federal law.
State courts deal with cases involving state law violations.
Many crimes exist in both federal and state laws—federal laws encompass nearly five thousand crimes that overlap with state laws.
Concurrent Jurisdiction
When both federal and state jurisdictions apply to a case, concurrent jurisdiction exists.
In these cases, either court can try the defendant under their respective laws, or one jurisdiction may defer to the other.
Federal criminal charges often take precedence due to greater resources and practical reasons.