Forms of Review in Criminal Cases Include Which of the Following

Chapter 2 The Criminal Justice System Continuum

Section 1, Federal and State Jurisdiction Abstract

An understanding of the role and functions of the various court systems in the United States provides victim service providers with a solid foundation for agreement the dynamics of the law. The U.South. judicial arrangement tin be confusing and frustrating to victims when they are first exposed to it. Knowing some of the rationale for its nowadays twenty-four hour period limerick may help victims understand the foundations of our judicial system and the manner in which laws operate and collaborate.

Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this section, students volition empathize the following concepts:

The principle of federalism and how it affected the structure of our courtroom system.

How the dual arrangement of country and federal courts functions.

The characteristics of American courtroom systems.

How the juvenile courtroom system functions.

Statistical Overview

During each financial year, 1996 and 1997, U.Southward. commune courts terminated an boilerplate of 296,000 cases. Approximately 84% of these cases were civil, and 16% were criminal cases (BJS 1999).

Of the near 500,000 federal civil cases terminated during fiscal years 1996-97, 19% (96,284) were tort claims in which plaintiffs claimed injury, loss, or harm from defendants' negligent or intentional acts (Ibid.).

Of the estimated 1.76 million cases involving malversation charges handled in U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction in 1996, 53% were processed formally, either by filing a malversation petition in the juvenile court or waiving the case to criminal courtroom (Stahl 1999).

Characteristics of the American Judicial System

In society to understand the principles of federal and state court jurisdiction, information technology is essential to have a clear understanding of how the American judicial system functions. The post-obit section will provide a brief overview of the judicial organization in the Usa.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM

The court system in the United States is based upon the principle of federalism. The first Congress established a federal court system, and the individual states were permitted to continue their own judicial structure. At that place was general agreement among our nation's founders that individual states needed to retain pregnant autonomy from federal command. Nether this concept of federalism, the The states adult every bit a loose confederation of semi-contained states having their ain courts, with the federal court system acting in a very express manner. In the early history of our nation, nearly cases were tried in state courts. It was but later that the federal government and the federal judiciary began to exercise jurisdiction over crimes and civil matters. Jurisdiction in this context simply ways the ability of the court to enforce laws and punish individuals who violate those laws.

A dual arrangement of state and federal courts . As a effect of this historical evolution, a dual system of state and federal courts exists today. Therefore, federal and state courts may accept concurrent jurisdiction over specific crimes. For example, a person who robs a banking concern may be tried and convicted in state court for robbery, so tried and convicted in federal courtroom for the federal offense of robbery of a federally-chartered savings institution.

Courtroom organisation performs its duties with trivial or no supervision . Another characteristic of the American court organisation is that it performs its duties with little or no supervision. A Supreme Court Justice does not exercise supervision over lower court judges in the aforementioned way that a government supervisor or director exercises command over his or her employees. The U.S. Supreme Courtroom and the diverse state supreme courts do supervision only in the sense that they hear appellate cases from lower courts and establish certain procedures for these courts.

Specialization occurs primarily at the land and local level . A third feature of the U.Southward. court arrangement is one of specialization that occurs primarily at the state and local level. In many states, courts of limited jurisdiction hear misdemeanor cases. Other state courts of general jurisdiction endeavor felonies. All the same other courts may be designated as juvenile courts and hear merely matters involving juveniles. This process also occurs in sure civil courts that hear only family unit law matters, probate matters, housing matters, or civil cases involving amercement. At the federal level, there are courts such as defalcation that hear but cases dealing with specific matters.

Geographic organization of the American court organization . The quaternary feature of the American court organisation is its geographic system. State and federal courts are organized into geographic areas. In many jurisdictions these are called judicial districts and contain various levels of courts. For case, on the federal level, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has district (trial) courts that hear matters within certain specific boundaries, and an appellate court that hears all appeals from cases within that surface area. Several studies have been conducted regarding the departure in sentences for the aforementioned type of crime in geographically singled-out courts. For example, in Iowa the average sentence for motor vehicle theft was forty-vii months while the average sentence for the same offense in New York was fourteen months. (Pursley 1994). This should not be taken as a criticism; rather it may reflect different social values and attitudes within specific geographic areas.

The State Courtroom System

Historically each of the 13 original states had their own unique court construction. This independence continued after the American Revolution and resulted in widespread differences among the various states, some of which still exist today. Because each land adopted its own system of courts, the consequence was a poorly planned and confusing judicial structure. As a upshot, in that location have been several reform movements whose purpose has been to streamline and modernize this system.

Many country courts tin can be divided into three levels:

Trial courts.

Appellate courts.

Supreme courts.

TRIAL COURTS

Trial courts are where criminal cases start and finish. The trial court conducts the entire series of acts that culminate in either the accused'due south release or sentencing. Land trial courts tin exist farther divided into courts of:

Limited or special jurisdiction.

Courts of general jurisdiction.

The nature and blazon of case determines which court will take jurisdiction.

Limited jurisdiction . Courts that simply hear and make up one's mind certain limited legal issues are courts of limited jurisdiction:

Courts of express jurisdiction hear and determine issues such as traffic tickets or set bail for criminal defendants.

Typically, these courts hear certain types of small-scale civil or criminal cases.

There are approximately 13,000 local courts in the United States.
They are chosen county, magistrate, justice or municipal courts.

Judges in these courts may be either appointed or elected.

In many jurisdictions these are office-time positions, and the incumbent may have another job or position in improver to serving as a judge. Nonetheless, merely because they handle minor ceremonious and criminal matters does not hateful these courts do not perform important duties. Often, the only contact the average citizen will have with the judicial arrangement occurs at this level.

In addition, courts of limited jurisdiction may hear certain types of specialized matters such as:

Probate of wills and estates.

Divorces.

Kid custody matters.

Landlord-tenant disputes.

Juvenile proceedings.

These types of courts may exist local courts or, depending on the state, may be courts of general jurisdiction that are designated by statute to hear and decide specific types of cases. For example, in California, a superior court is considered a court of general jurisdiction; all the same, certain superior courts are designated to hear simply juvenile matters, thereby becoming a courtroom of limited jurisdiction when sitting equally a juvenile court.

General jurisdiction . Courts of general jurisdiction are granted authorization to hear and determine all issues that are brought before them. These are courts that ordinarily hear all major civil or criminal cases. These courts are known by a variety of names, such as:

Superior Courts.

Circuit Courts.

District Courts.

Courts of Common Pleas.

Since they are courts of general jurisdiction, they have authority over all types of cases and controversies and, unless otherwise geographically express, may decide issues that occur anywhere inside the country. Some larger jurisdictions such equally Los Angeles or New York may accept hundreds of courts of full general jurisdiction within the city limits. It is of import to be certain about the correct terminology for courts in each jurisdiction. For case, the New York Supreme Court is the state'southward trial court and its highest courtroom is called the Superior Court. Just the reverse is truthful in many jurisdictions.

Typically, these courts hear civil cases involving the same types of issues that courts of limited jurisdiction hear, although the corporeality of damages volition be higher and may attain millions.

These courts besides hear the most serious forms of criminal matters including death sentence cases.

Courts of general jurisdiction traditionally have the power to society individuals to do or refrain from doing certain acts.

These courts may issue injunctions that prohibit performing certain acts or require individuals to perform certain functions or duties.

This authority is derived from the equity power that resides in courts of general jurisdiction.

Equity is the concept that justice is administrated according to fairness as contrasted with the strict rules of police force. In early on English Common Law, such separate courts of disinterestedness were known every bit Courts of Chancery. These early courts were non concerned with technical legal issues; rather they focused on rendering decisions or orders that were fair or equitable. In modern times, the power of these courts has been merged with courts of general jurisdiction, allowing them to rule on matters that crave fairness too as the strict application of the police.

The power to issue temporary restraining orders (TROs) in spousal abuse cases comes from the equitable powers of the court.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appellate jurisdiction is reserved for courts that hear appeals from both limited and general jurisdiction courts.

These courts practice not hold trials or hear prove.

They make up one's mind matters of law and result formal written decisions or "opinions."

At that place are two classes of appellate courts:

Intermediate, or Courts of Appeals.

Terminal, or Supreme Courts.

Courts of appeals . The intermediate appellate courts are known equally courts of appeals. Approximately half the states have designated intermediate appellate courts.

These courts may exist divided into judicial districts that hear all appeals inside their district.

They will hear and decide all bug of law that are raised on entreatment in both civil and criminal cases.
Since these courts deal strictly with legal or equitable issues, there is no jury to decide factual disputes.

These courts accept the facts as determined by the trial courts.

Intermediate appellate courts have the authority to reverse the decision of the lower courts, and to send the affair dorsum with instructions to retry the example in accordance with their opinion.

They also may uphold the determination of the lower court.

In either state of affairs, the political party who loses the entreatment at this level may file an entreatment with the next higher appellate courtroom.

SUPREME COURTS

Final appellate courts are the highest state appellate courts. They may be known as supreme courts or courts of last resort. There may exist five, seven, or nine justices sitting on this court depending on the state. This courtroom has jurisdiction to hear and decide bug dealing with all matters decided by lower courts, including ruling on state constitutional or statutory bug. This decision is binding on all other courts within the state. One time this court had decided an issue, the simply potential appeal left is to file in the federal court organisation, but simply if grounds for federal appellate jurisdiction be.

The Federal Court System

While state courts had their origin in historical custom, federal courts were created past the U.S. Constitution. Department 1 of Article 3 established the federal court system with the words providing for "ane Supreme Court, and . . . such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to fourth dimension ordain and establish." From this beginning, Congress has engaged in a series of acts that has resulted in today's federal court system. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the U.S. Supreme Court and established federal District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals.

FEDERAL District COURTS

Federal District Courts are the everyman level of the federal court system. These courts have original jurisdiction over all cases involving a violation of federal statutes or other instances of statutorily-defined federal jurisdiction. These district courts handle thousands of cases per year.

FEDERAL Excursion COURTS

Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals are the intermediate appellate level courts within the federal organisation. These courts are called circuit courts because the federal organisation is divided into eleven circuits. A 12th Circuit Court of Appeals serves the District of Columbia surface area. These courts hear all appeals from U.Due south. District Courts and habeas corpus appeals from state court convictions. These appeals are normally heard past panels of three of the appellate court judges rather than by all the judges of each excursion.

U.S. SUPREME Courtroom

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Information technology has the capacity for judicial review of all lower court decisions, equally well as state and federal statutes. Past exercising this power, the Supreme Court determines which laws and lower court decisions conform to the mandates set along in the U.Southward. Constitution. The concept of judicial review was beginning referred to past Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, where he described the function of the Supreme Court as ensuring that the will of the people volition exist supreme over the will of the legislature (The Supreme Court of the United States, no appointment). This concept was firmly and finally established in the U.Southward. judicial organization when the Supreme Court asserted its ability of judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Although it is primarily an appellate court, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in the following cases:

Cases betwixt the United States and a state.

Cases betwixt states, and cases involving foreign ambassadors, ministers, and consuls.

Cases between a land and a citizen of some other state or country.

The courtroom hears appeals from lower courts including the various state supreme courts. If 4 justices of the U.S. Supreme Courtroom vote to hear a case, the court will outcome a Writ of Certiorari. This is an club to a lower courtroom to send the records of the case to the Supreme Court for review. The court meets on the starting time Monday of October and usually remains in session until June. The court may review any example it deems worthy merely it actually hears very few of the cases filed. Of approximately five,000 appeals each year, the court agrees to review about 200, but may not issue an stance on each case.

VICTIM CASES AT THE SUPREME Court LEVEL

The Supreme Court handles possibly the broadest conceivable array of legal and social problems. Recent victim-related Supreme Courtroom decisions accept addressed the following topics:

Victim impact statements.

Detest crimes.

Child victims of law-breaking.

Notoriety-for-turn a profit for perpetrators.

The Juvenile Court System

Because of the pregnant increment in importance of juvenile crime in our gild, an overview of juvenile courts within the state and federal courtroom organisation is important. While there are some differences, both federal and country systems were initially founded upon the concept of rehabilitation of young offenders. Additionally, both systems wanted to shield juveniles from public scrutinies; therefore, each contained provisions for keeping juvenile matters confidential.

THE FEDERAL COURT JUVENILE SYSTEM

When Congress addressed the upshot of juvenile offenders, information technology established two alternatives for the prosecution of juveniles:

The juvenile can waive his or her rights to exist treated as a juvenile.

The juvenile can take the thing treated as a civil proceeding called juvenile arbitrament.

If the courtroom finds that the juvenile committed the criminal offence, he or she faces a series of federal sanctions including detention. There is a federal preference for state prosecution of juveniles since there is no carve up federal juvenile court guess or juvenile detention system. If a juvenile is adjudicated to be a delinquent, he or she is placed in a land juvenile facility or on juvenile probation. The federal government contracts with states for this service.

Until the passage of the Law-breaking Control Human activity of 1990, the federal government but prosecuted juveniles who committed crimes on federal reservations, where the states had no jurisdiction. The Offense Command Act added two other categories of juveniles who autumn under federal juvenile courtroom jurisdiction: juveniles who commit felony crimes of violence and/or those juveniles involved in certain drug felonies. Similar to near state court systems, federal police force allows for the transfer or certification of a juvenile to "developed status." This procedure allows juveniles to be tried as adults in either the state or federal court system.

Under federal police force, juveniles are those persons under twenty-one who commit a federal offense before their eighteenth birthday. A federal judge acts as the federal equivalent of the state juvenile court approximate. The proceedings are typically confidential with no members of the news media in attendance. Federal jurisdiction in juvenile matters is established where:

The land does not have jurisdiction.

The state does not have programs or services available for juveniles.

The offense charged is a violent felony or drug offense and in that location is a substantial federal interest in the case.

A juvenile proceeding is initiated by the filing of an information. In most cases, the U.S. Attorney must file a certification stating that there are grounds for federal jurisdiction. The hearing in federal court is very similar to a court trial.

THE State Courtroom JUVENILE Arrangement

The divide handling of juvenile justice matters has roots throughout history. Even in earlier periods in America, sure specific juvenile accommodations were in use. However, the present day American state-level juvenile court organization dates back to 1899 when the state of Illinois passed the Illinois Juvenile Court Deed. It was at that fourth dimension that the juvenile court organisation every bit we know it today came into existence (Play a trick on 1972). This statute separated the juvenile courtroom system from the adult criminal organization. It labeled minors who violated the law as "delinquents" rather than criminals, and required that juvenile court judges determine what "is in the best interests of the small" in rendering their decision.

The juvenile courtroom organisation is guided by five basic principles:

1. The state is the ultimate parent of all children within its jurisdiction (the doctrine of parens patriae) and has the power to footstep into the parental part in loco parentis.

2. Children are worth saving and the state should apply non-castigating measures to do and then.

3. Children should be nurtured and non stigmatized by the court process.

four. Each child is different and justice should be tailored to meet individual needs and requirements.

5. The use of noncriminal sanctions are necessary to give main consideration to the needs of the child (Cadwell 1966, 358).

Information technology is of import to note that each state determines its own jurisdictional age of "minors" handled past its juvenile arrangement. Near involve children who are under 18 years of age. A few states apply higher ages, upward to xx-one, usually for specific issues. In response to increasingly vehement juvenile criminal offense, some states have lowered their upper age limit for juvenile jurisdiction to fifteen, and even fourteen years of age.

While these principles were originally adopted for delinquents or minors who committed criminal acts, they have been broadly applied to proceedings involving children who are victims of abuse. Juvenile courts have jurisdiction over three types of minors:

Delinquents.

Status offenders.

Dependent children.

Delinquents are minors who have committed criminal offenses. Status offenders engage in acts that are non problematic if committed past an adult, such as truancy, running away from home, or incorrigible beliefs. Dependent children are those who are in need of state intervention considering of abuse or neglect past their caretakers.

Corruption AND Fail PROCEEDINGS

While the procedure is basically the same for delinquents likewise as dependent minors, the juvenile court process dealing with children who are victims of abuse or neglect is of particular importance to victim service providers:

This process is ordinarily initiated by filing a petition with the court.
A petition is a formal pleading that alleges that the parents or custodians endangered the wellness or welfare of the kid.

The petition may allege fail, concrete, emotional or sexual abuse of the child and gives the juvenile court authority to act.

Detention hearings in child maltreatment . Once the petition is filed, many jurisdictions hold a testify cause or detention hearing. This hearing is commonly conducted within twenty-iv to forty-eight hours after filing the petition or the emergency removal of the child. The detention hearing requires child protective services or police to produce evidence justifying the emergency removal of the child, or to present evidence that would allow the court to social club the removal of the child if he or she is still in the custody of the parents. The parents may likewise admit or deny the allegations contained in the petition at this hearing.

If they admit the allegations, the courtroom orders child protective services to conduct an investigation to make up one's mind where the child should be placed equally a effect of the admissions by the parents.

If the parents deny the allegations, the courtroom sets a date for an adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing.

Pending this hearing, the courtroom may order the child temporarily placed in a living arrangement outside the dwelling.

Child corruption and neglect adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing . An adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing is used to determine if there is sufficient bear witness to determine whether the allegations in the petition are true. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court will return its decision. If the petition is upheld, the courtroom sets a appointment for a dispositional hearing. If the petition is non upheld, the child is returned to the parents and the case is dismissed.

During the adjudicatory hearing, the state presents evidence to support its merits that the child has been driveling.

This may take the class of having the child evidence to the incident, or experts employed by the land may render their opinion regarding the facts surrounding the case.

The state is represented by a juvenile prosecutor, state's abet, county counsel or other governmental attorney.

The parents have a right to cross examine witnesses and present any evidence they desire in rebuttal to the state'southward prove.
At the stop of the hearing, both parties may present arguments in favor of their position.

The burden of proof to uphold the corruption or fail petition is the same every bit a civil case. In civil trials, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the case past a preponderance of the evidence. This is commonly divers equally slightly more than fifty percent. A criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is non proof beyond all dubiety, only information technology is proof of the "fabric facts to a moral certainty" that they did occur.

In juvenile dependency cases, in social club to remove the child from the custody of his or her parents, some jurisdictions require proof by articulate and disarming show. This is more than a preponderance of the bear witness, only less than beyond a reasonable doubt (Otterson 1979).

Once the adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing is concluded, the side by side hearing to occur is the dispositional hearing. This hearing is to make up one's mind where the kid should be placed. The court will determine whether the child should be immediately returned to his or her parents or placed in an out of domicile environs for a period of time. The guiding principle in this hearing is "the best interests of the child." If the courtroom orders the child placed exterior the home, it may schedule periodic reviews to decide if or when the child volition be reunited with the parents. Typically, a specific plan regarding placement is established and monitored.

From the beginning of the intervention process until the final dispositional hearing and beyond, every party in the activity has sure rights. The parents and the child each has distinct rights that must be observed and protected. These rights include:

Notice.

An opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The right to confront and catechize witnesses.

Effective representation by an attorney.

In a dependency hearing, the rights of a child include appointing an attorney who will speak on behalf of the kid. This attorney must stand for what he or she believes is in the all-time interests of the child regardless of what CPS or the parents' advocate believes is appropriate. In some jurisdictions this is a regime-funded chaser; in others, it is a individual attorney appointed past the court to stand for the child. Depending on the case, the attorney may side with the parents and argue for return of the child to their care, or the chaser may take the position that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from the custody of the parents. Even if the child is removed temporarily from the custody of his or her parents, the child has a correct to reunification efforts subsequently a reasonable time.

Many jurisdictions additionally appoint Courtroom Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), or similarly trained (typically non-chaser) individuals. The office of these kid advocates is to present to the court an contained analysis of what is all-time for the child. This is particularly important; as the child's legal representative, the courtroom-appointed lawyer must forwards the child'southward wishes when an objective view would be to the contrary. For instance, the lawyer may make up one's mind that he or she must vigorously advocate a juvenile'southward wish to return dwelling, while an independent kid abet may determine that this is non actually in the child's best interest.

During dependency hearings, parents have a right to notice of the hearing, an opportunity to be present at that hearing and to be represented by an chaser. They may present any testify they desire to rebut the charges. If the child is removed from their custody, they have the right in nearly jurisdictions to a re-unification plan that volition let them to regain custody of the child once they have finished treatment or counseling or complied with other courtroom orders.

VICTIMS' RIGHTS IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY MATTERS

Amongst the nigh rapidly changing areas in the victim assistance field is the extension of victim rights in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Historically, juvenile courts have been closed proceedings and records have been generally confidential. Even the victim was unable to larn much, if anything, about the progress of a instance against the juvenile who allegedly offended against them. Juvenile delinquency proceedings are analogous, in many ways, to developed criminal trials, with all the typical obstacles to victim participation. The juvenile court's confidentiality provisions for alleged delinquents exacerbate these obstacles tremendously.

Many states have, or are, considering rolling dorsum their previously hard and fast confidentiality statutes. States like Connecticut, Missouri, and Arizona have gone farther to provide for victims' rights and accommodations in juvenile courts that mirror those in adult courts. This provides fertile ground for expansion of victim advocacy and assistance efforts to a previously underserved population, victims of juvenile crime.

Definition of Terms

Adjudicatory or Jurisdictional Hearing: Used to determine if there is sufficient evidence to detect the allegations in the petition are true.

Delinquents: Those minors who accept committed criminal offenses.

Status Offenders: Minors who are truant from schoolhouse, run away from dwelling or are considered incorrigible.

Dependent Children: Those who are in need of state intervention because of neglect or abuse past their caretakers.

Detention Hearing: Requires child protective services or constabulary to produce testify justifying the emergency removal of the kid or nowadays evidence that would allow the court to order the removal of the kid if he or she is still in the custody of the parents.

Dispositional Hearing: To determine where the kid should exist placed.

Parens Patriae: Meaning "the country is the parent," this doctrine is key to the juvenile court's power to decide on placements, treatment and other determinations regarding children.

Petition: A formal pleading that alleges that the parents or custodians endangered the health or welfare of the kid.

Writ of Certiorari: An gild to a lower court to transport the records of the case to the Supreme Courtroom for review.

The Dual System of Courts in America

FEDERAL COURTS

U.S. Supreme Court