More handpicked essays just for you.
Federal court system structure
Structure of the federal court system
The structure of the federal court system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Federal court system structure
Although the judicial system was different in several ways, it outlined how we prosecute and defend people in modern court
When two parties go to court they receive justice, the role of the court is to dispense justice fairly to everyone. 2. What is a court hierarchy and explain the reasons for it? The judiciary of Australia has formed a hierarchy of courts from a variety of courts and tribunals at both the state, territory and Federal levels.
The United States utilizes dual court system in their courts. This means that there is a separate jurisdiction for each state, but each of those jurisdictions fall under the federal court jurisdiction (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The state court process begins in a trial court of limited jurisdiction. It would then move to a trial court of general jurisdiction and if appealed, into an Intermediate court of appeals. In the federal courts, a case would begin in the district court, then move into the circuit court of appeals if necessary.
Two pros of this system include: Diversity and Local Context: Having separate state court systems allows for the consideration of local laws, customs, and traditions, promoting a better understanding of local communities and their specific needs. Accessibility: State courts are typically more accessible to the general public due to their proximity and familiarity. This can enhance access to justice for individuals who may find federal courts more distant and intimidating.
How does the concept of federalism complicate the administration of criminal justice in the United States? What is your opinion about our current administration of justice? Due to the concept of federalism; criminal justice administration is large and complex. It is however one of the most fundamental principles in the legal and political system.
(a) Explain why the American judicial system is considered to be an “adversarial” system. An adversarial system is when two advocates, if you will represent their parties ' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly. So, in an American court you have the prosecution who are bring on the charges and the defendant who is charged and both parties case or position is brought before and impartial judge and jury. This is what classify it as a adversarial system.
The 2nd level is the County Level Courts. County Courts have jurisdiction over juvenile matters, misdemeanors with fines greater than 500$ or jail sentence, and probate matters. District Courts are the 3rd level. They have jurisdiction over felonious matters, divorce cases, land titles, and contested elections. The 4th level is the Courts of Appeals, which is the final step before the
Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices The process for electing a federal judge is both a simple, yet complicated one. A number of things take place between the need for a nominee and the appointment to a position. The basis for the nomination and appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices is the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution: “The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....” First a vacancy must be present at which time the President can make a nomination.
Growing up, the idea of becoming an attorney was always appealing to me. I was inspired by my father and grandfather, two fulfilled and passionate attorneys. As I aged, I grew attracted to the complexities of the legal system and the idea of using my voice to advocate for others. However, as I began my undergraduate education, I grappled with uncertainties about following in their footsteps. I decided to continue taking government courses, but vowed to explore other areas of study.
Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.
The federal court system of the United States has three main levels. First are the district courts, the circuit courts which are the first level of appeal, and then the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court was created by Article III in the U.S. Constitution, which called “for the creation of “one supreme Court” and establishes the Court’s jurisdiction, or its authority to hear cases and make decisions about them, and the types of cases the Court may hear” (Krutz and Waskiewicz). Although the Supreme Court has been around for a while, it still plays an important role in the United States today.
The three levels within the federal courts are: the U.S. Magistrate Courts, the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The magistrate courts are the lowest level and as such are limited to trying misdemeanors, setting bail amounts and assisting the district courts. The U.S. District Courts are the federal branch of original jurisdiction courts. These are responsible for criminal trials and giving guilty or not guilty verdicts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals are responsible for all the appeals from U.S. district courts.
Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
The States Courts would likely hear case (a) and the Federal Courts would likely hear case (c). Sometimes, the jurisdiction of state courts will overlap with that of federal courts, meaning that some cases can be brought in both courts. With that being said, both cases (b) and (d) are prime examples of the overlap. With cases (b) and (d) being able to go to either to state or federal courts, we then need to find the determining factors to what court would be the proper one for the cases. For instance, for case (b) factors could include where you committed tax fraud.
Out of the three the courts are the most harmful to the criminal justice systems. Once the police have done their investigations and arrested all offenders involved it will be up to the court to decide whether the person is guilty or not. This is where the problem comes in. Many people have been judged wrongly in the courts.
