ipl-logo

Common Law Vs Trial Court Case Study

702 Words3 Pages

Sources of Law: Common law finds its foundation in precedents, rulings and decisions made by past judges Stare decisis (let the decision stand) is a key concept. But judges have developed the means to change or adapt the common law by modifying, distinguishing or overruling precedent case law. The common law is not written down in a law book but is collected in volumes that contain the reports of legal decisions. Each case is given its own legal identity through a system of numbered citations. 2. Equity Law Developed to deal with issues too fixed for common law More flexible, which allows judges to form their own decisions without the perspective of a jury Permits courts to restrain the actions of individuals or corporations Can only attempt …show more content…

Differences: trial court is the court where a case starts. In the trial court, both sides present evidence to show their version of what happened. Most of the evidence presented in the trial court comes from witnesses and exhibits, which are items and documents connected to the case. However, in the appellate courts, there are no witnesses, and the only evidence that can be presented is that which was introduced in the trial court. c. The second difference between the two courts is the judges. In trial courts, there is one judge in the courtroom. That judge decides what evidence can and cannot be used and often decides the outcome of the case. In Michigan, appeals are decided by more than one judge. In the Michigan Court of Appeals, three judges hear the case, while in the Michigan Supreme Court, there are nine judges (called justices) that hear each case. d. The last major difference between the trial courts and the appellate courts is the role of the jury. A jury is sometimes used in trial courts to help decide the case. In a criminal trial, the jury decides whether a person is guilty or not guilty. In a civil trial, the jury decides whether a person is liable (legally responsible for damages) or not liable. However, there is no jury in the appellate courts. Appellate judges determine the outcome of all appeals.

Show More
Related
1757 Words | 8 Pages

Once the magistrate was satisfied that the evidence was capable of satisfying the jury, the accused was committed for trial or sentence to the Supreme Court. Cases committed to a higher court would then be determined by a judge as well as a jury. However, after Mr Lopez pleaded not guilty, he elected to be tried without a jury: section 132 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 The

Read More
1235 Words | 5 Pages

After listening to both sides present their case the judge will issue a ruling on the defendant’s

Read More
1142 Words | 5 Pages

An appeal against conviction is available in cases where the accused has pleaded not guilty and has had a trial in either the Supreme or District Court. The Court of Appeal is a division of the Supreme Court and hears all appeals

Read More
692 Words | 3 Pages

Appeals or judicial review are processes that allows courts to supervise and double check the decisions of lower courts and tribunals. Power has been delegated down to the lower courts and especially the tribunals, and we need processes like these to ensure the fair use of power. The most important aspect of this is to offer legal recourse when there has been a legal error or a misuse of power. 3. What is the difference between an adversarial hearing and an inquisitorial

Read More
401 Words | 2 Pages

1. A court proceeding where a person who is charged with committing a crime against the state is brought to trial to be found either guilty or not guilty. Del Mason was brought into court on the suspicion that he had robbed a bank, which would be a crime against the state. 2. A civil case involves two or more parties in a legal dispute.

Read More
772 Words | 4 Pages

A man sits upon the stand as he hopes for the jury to plead him not guilty. The American Jury System has been in the United States Judicial Branch for over 385 years. The basis of a bench trial is that there is only a Judge that decides whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. Whereas on a jury trial the fate of the accused is proposed to the jury and they would decide whether he is guilty or not guilty. The jury trials provide fairness, it represents citizenship, and there is less of a bias than that of a bench trial.

Read More
946 Words | 4 Pages

During a Bench Trial, the judge decides what the verdict is and his or her opinion is the only one that matters. However, a Jury Trial uses the opinion of twelve ordinary citizens. Just based on the fact that more people are deciding the verdict makes it more just. One person, the judge, may overlook a small detail. Consequently, the case could have a totally different result if that detail was not overlooked.

Read More
810 Words | 4 Pages

The biggest difference between the court systems and juries then and now is that the Catholic Church had a lot of say in court decisions. Prior to the 12th century, the Catholic church dominated the legal system. The church had say in what punishments were acceptable and

Read More
701 Words | 3 Pages

Juries according to dictionary.com consist of a group of people normally 12 individuals who are provided with facts about a court case in order to give a verdict. As a democracy, the United States has juries in certain cases in order to maintain law and order and for the right of freedom to be continually exercised by every American Citizen. Jury members are selected from a list based on their voter’s registration and or driver’s license to go through certain procedure to determine qualifications for jury duty. The procedure is called voir dire and persons who showcase bias, possible relation to the case, or are not fit to make decisions concerning the case are removed. Jurors are then given information on the case and get to listen to both sides of the case in order to make a conclusion.

Read More
579 Words | 3 Pages

The next court is the Court of Criminal Appeals. They are consisted of Presiding Judge and eight judges. This Court has statewide and also final appellate jurisdiction of criminal cases. They also make rules of post-trial and appellate procedure for criminal cases.

Read More
943 Words | 4 Pages

To start off, the jury is an important role when it comes to going to trial. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to an impartial trial. A jury trial usually consists of six to twelve personnel within the community. There is a process called voir dire in which the selected jury goes through a series of question to determine their mindset and to ensure that they aren’t favoring one side over the other. Both the prosecution and defense team have a chance to select and question the jury.

Read More
635 Words | 3 Pages

The court structure in the United States is comprised of a dual court system. The dual court system consists of “one system of state and local courts and another system of federal courts” (Bohm & Haley, 2011, p. 274). Although the system has a separate court system for state and federal court, they do connect in the United States Supreme Court. Each court has various levels of jurisdiction to hear and make decisions over cases (Bohm & Haley, 2011).

Read More
1472 Words | 6 Pages

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,

Read More
1268 Words | 6 Pages

The law is meant to provide justice to people. So the main advantages of the common law system is that it is consistent, adaptive, equal and independent. Consistency is achieved through the precedent as the base for the decisions, not the personal attitudes of the judges. The parties, involved in the process, are expecting that their case would be decided as the similar one, it creates certainty in getting equal justice and stability. Precedents are usually developed in the higher courts by the senior

Read More
1612 Words | 7 Pages

Precedents have a great importance in court’s decision. • Legal Sources: They are known as the instrument through which legal rules, law or principles are established: Legislature: Legislature is an essential part of state established by the parliament consisting of elected officials. Members of parliament present the bill which after thorough discussion approve or reject it. If the bill is approved from parliament, then senates looks through it and approve it with consultation, and it becomes an act. All the acts passed by governing authority can be challenged through judicial

Read More

More about Common Law Vs Trial Court Case Study

Open Document