What Kind of Jurisdiction Allows a District Court to Hear Most Federal Criminal and Civil Cases?

Chapter 2 The Criminal Justice System Continuum

Department 1, Federal and State Jurisdiction Abstract

An understanding of the office and functions of the various court systems in the United States provides victim service providers with a solid foundation for understanding the dynamics of the law. The U.Southward. judicial system can be disruptive and frustrating to victims when they are kickoff exposed to it. Knowing some of the rationale for its nowadays mean solar day composition may assist victims understand the foundations of our judicial system and the manner in which laws operate and interact.

Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this section, students will sympathize the following concepts:

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

How the dual organisation of land and federal courts functions.

The characteristics of American courtroom systems.

How the juvenile court system functions.

Statistical Overview

During each fiscal twelvemonth, 1996 and 1997, U.South. district courts terminated an average of 296,000 cases. Approximately 84% of these cases were civil, and xvi% were criminal cases (BJS 1999).

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

Of the estimated one.76 1000000 cases involving malversation charges handled in U.South. courts with juvenile jurisdiction in 1996, 53% were processed formally, either past filing a delinquency petition in the juvenile court or waiving the case to criminal court (Stahl 1999).

Characteristics of the American Judicial System

In lodge to sympathize the principles of federal and state court jurisdiction, it is essential to have a articulate agreement of how the American judicial organisation functions. The following section will provide a brief overview of the judicial system in the United States.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM

The court arrangement in the United States is based upon the principle of federalism. The first Congress established a federal courtroom system, and the private states were permitted to continue their ain judicial structure. There was full general agreement among our nation's founders that individual states needed to retain meaning autonomy from federal control. Under this concept of federalism, the United states of america adult as a loose confederation of semi-independent states having their ain courts, with the federal court system acting in a very express mode. In the early history of our nation, almost cases were tried in land courts. It was simply after that the federal government and the federal judiciary began to exercise jurisdiction over crimes and civil matters. Jurisdiction in this context simply means the ability of the court to enforce laws and punish individuals who violate those laws.

A dual arrangement of country and federal courts . Equally a result of this historical evolution, a dual arrangement of country and federal courts exists today. Therefore, federal and land courts may have concurrent jurisdiction over specific crimes. For instance, a person who robs a depository financial institution may be tried and bedevilled in state court for robbery, then tried and convicted in federal courtroom for the federal criminal offence of robbery of a federally-chartered savings institution.

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

Specialization occurs primarily at the state and local level . A third feature of the U.Due south. court organization is one of specialization that occurs primarily at the land and local level. In many states, courts of express jurisdiction hear misdemeanor cases. Other state courts of full general jurisdiction try felonies. Still other courts may be designated as juvenile courts and hear simply matters involving juveniles. This process also occurs in certain civil courts that hear merely family police force matters, probate matters, housing matters, or civil cases involving damages. At the federal level, there are courts such as bankruptcy that hear merely cases dealing with specific matters.

Geographic arrangement of the American court system . The fourth characteristic of the American court system is its geographic organization. Land and federal courts are organized into geographic areas. In many jurisdictions these are chosen judicial districts and contain diverse levels of courts. For case, on the federal level, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has district (trial) courts that hear matters inside certain specific boundaries, and an appellate court that hears all appeals from cases within that area. Several studies have been conducted regarding the difference in sentences for the same type of law-breaking in geographically singled-out courts. For example, in Iowa the boilerplate sentence for motor vehicle theft was forty-seven months while the average sentence for the same offense in New York was xiv months. (Pursley 1994). This should not exist taken as a criticism; rather it may reflect different social values and attitudes within specific geographic areas.

The Country Court System

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

Many land courts can be divided into three levels:

Trial courts.

Appellate courts.

Supreme courts.

TRIAL COURTS

Trial courts are where criminal cases beginning and end. The trial court conducts the entire series of acts that culminate in either the defendant'south release or sentencing. State trial courts tin can be further divided into courts of:

Limited or special jurisdiction.

Courts of general jurisdiction.

The nature and type of case determines which court volition have jurisdiction.

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

Courts of limited jurisdiction hear and decide problems such every bit traffic tickets or set bail for criminal defendants.

Typically, these courts hear certain types of minor civil or criminal cases.

There are approximately 13,000 local courts in the U.s.a..
They are called county, magistrate, justice or municipal courts.

Judges in these courts may be either appointed or elected.

In many jurisdictions these are role-time positions, and the incumbent may have another chore or position in improver to serving every bit a guess. However, simply considering they handle pocket-size ceremonious and criminal matters does non mean these courts practise non perform important duties. Oftentimes, the only contact the average citizen will accept with the judicial system 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.

Child custody matters.

Landlord-tenant disputes.

Juvenile proceedings.

These types of courts may be local courts or, depending on the country, may be courts of general jurisdiction that are designated by statute to hear and make up one's mind specific types of cases. For example, in California, a superior court is considered a court of general jurisdiction; however, certain superior courts are designated to hear but juvenile matters, thereby becoming a court of express jurisdiction when sitting equally a juvenile courtroom.

General jurisdiction . Courts of general jurisdiction are granted authorization to hear and decide all issues that are brought before them. These are courts that normally hear all major ceremonious or criminal cases. These courts are known by a diverseness of names, such equally:

Superior Courts.

Circuit Courts.

District Courts.

Courts of Common Pleas.

Since they are courts of general jurisdiction, they accept authorization over all types of cases and controversies and, unless otherwise geographically limited, may decide issues that occur anywhere within the state. Some larger jurisdictions such as Los Angeles or New York may have hundreds of courts of general jurisdiction inside the metropolis limits. It is important to exist certain about the correct terminology for courts in each jurisdiction. For example, the New York Supreme Court is the state's trial court and its highest court is called the Superior Court. Merely the opposite is true in many jurisdictions.

Typically, these courts hear civil cases involving the same types of bug that courts of express jurisdiction hear, although the amount of damages will be college and may reach millions.

These courts too hear the most serious forms of criminal matters including death punishment cases.

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

These courts may outcome 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 law. In early on English Common Law, such split up courts of equity were known every bit Courts of Chancery. These early courts were not concerned with technical legal problems; rather they focused on rendering decisions or orders that were fair or equitable. In modernistic times, the power of these courts has been merged with courts of general jurisdiction, assuasive them to dominion on matters that require fairness as well equally the strict application of the law.

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

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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

These courts do not concord trials or hear bear witness.

They decide matters of law and issue formal written decisions or "opinions."

There are 2 classes of appellate courts:

Intermediate, or Courts of Appeals.

Final, or Supreme Courts.

Courts of appeals . The intermediate appellate courts are known as courts of appeals. Approximately half united states of america accept designated intermediate appellate courts.

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

They will hear and make up one's mind all bug of police that are raised on appeal in both civil and criminal cases.
Since these courts bargain strictly with legal or equitable problems, there is no jury to decide factual disputes.

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

Intermediate appellate courts have the say-so to reverse the decision of the lower courts, and to send the matter back with instructions to retry the example in accordance with their opinion.

They likewise may uphold the determination of the lower court.

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

SUPREME COURTS

Concluding appellate courts are the highest state appellate courts. They may be known as supreme courts or courts of final resort. In that location may be five, seven, or ix justices sitting on this court depending on the country. This court has jurisdiction to hear and decide issues dealing with all matters decided past lower courts, including ruling on state ramble or statutory issues. This conclusion is binding on all other courts within the state. Once this court had decided an upshot, the merely potential appeal left is to file in the federal court arrangement, simply just if grounds for federal appellate jurisdiction exist.

The Federal Court System

While state courts had their origin in historical custom, federal courts were created by the U.S. Constitution. Department 1 of Article III established the federal court system with the words providing for "1 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'southward federal court system. The Judiciary Deed 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 lowest 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 twelvemonth.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS

Federal Excursion Courts of Appeals are the intermediate appellate level courts within the federal arrangement. These courts are called circuit courts because the federal system is divided into xi circuits. A 12th Excursion Courtroom of Appeals serves the Commune of Columbia area. These courts hear all appeals from U.S. District Courts and habeas corpus appeals from state court convictions. These appeals are usually heard by panels of iii of the appellate court judges rather than by all the judges of each excursion.

U.S. SUPREME Court

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. It has the chapters for judicial review of all lower court decisions, as well as state and federal statutes. By exercising this ability, the Supreme Court determines which laws and lower courtroom decisions conform to the mandates set along in the U.S. Constitution. The concept of judicial review was first referred to by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, where he described the function of the Supreme Court every bit ensuring that the will of the people will be supreme over the will of the legislature (The Supreme Court of the United States, no date). This concept was firmly and finally established in the U.South. judicial system when the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

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

Cases between the United States and a state.

Cases between states, and cases involving strange ambassadors, ministers, and consuls.

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

The court hears appeals from lower courts including the various country supreme courts. If 4 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court vote to hear a case, the court will result a Writ of Certiorari. This is an gild to a lower courtroom to ship the records of the case to the Supreme Court for review. The courtroom meets on the offset Monday of Oct and ordinarily remains in session until June. The court may review any instance it deems worthy but it really hears very few of the cases filed. Of approximately five,000 appeals each yr, the court agrees to review nearly 200, just may not issue an opinion on each case.

VICTIM CASES AT THE SUPREME Courtroom LEVEL

The Supreme Court handles peradventure the broadest believable array of legal and social issues. Contempo victim-related Supreme Court decisions take addressed the following topics:

Victim affect statements.

Detest crimes.

Child victims of offense.

Notoriety-for-profit for perpetrators.

The Juvenile Court Organization

Because of the significant increase in importance of juvenile crime in our society, an overview of juvenile courts within the state and federal court organization is important. While there are some differences, both federal and state 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 Arrangement

When Congress addressed the result of juvenile offenders, it 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 have the affair treated every bit a civil proceeding called juvenile arbitrament.

If the court finds that the juvenile committed the crime, he or she faces a series of federal sanctions including detention. At that place is a federal preference for land prosecution of juveniles since there is no separate federal juvenile court judge or juvenile detention system. If a juvenile is adjudicated to be a delinquent, he or she is placed in a country juvenile facility or on juvenile probation. The federal regime contracts with states for this service.

Until the passage of the Crime Control Act of 1990, the federal government only prosecuted juveniles who committed crimes on federal reservations, where us had no jurisdiction. The Offense Command Act added two other categories of juveniles who autumn nether federal juvenile courtroom jurisdiction: juveniles who commit felony crimes of violence and/or those juveniles involved in certain drug felonies. Like to most country courtroom systems, federal police allows for the transfer or certification of a juvenile to "adult status." This process allows juveniles to be tried as adults in either the state or federal court system.

Nether federal law, juveniles are those persons under twenty-1 who commit a federal criminal offense before their eighteenth birthday. A federal judge acts every bit the federal equivalent of the country juvenile court judge. The proceedings are typically confidential with no members of the news media in attendance. Federal jurisdiction in juvenile matters is established where:

The state does not accept jurisdiction.

The land does not accept programs or services available for juveniles.

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

A juvenile proceeding is initiated past the filing of an data. In virtually cases, the U.S. Chaser must file a certification stating that at that place are grounds for federal jurisdiction. The hearing in federal courtroom is very similar to a courtroom trial.

THE STATE COURT JUVENILE SYSTEM

The divide handling of juvenile justice matters has roots throughout history. Even in earlier periods in America, sure specific juvenile accommodations were in use. Yet, the nowadays solar day American state-level juvenile court system dates back to 1899 when the country of Illinois passed the Illinois Juvenile Court Act. It was at that time that the juvenile court system equally we know information technology today came into existence (Fox 1972). This statute separated the juvenile court organization from the adult criminal system. 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 minor" in rendering their decision.

The juvenile court organization 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 step into the parental function in loco parentis.

two. Children are worth saving and the country should utilize non-punitive measures to practice so.

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

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

v. The use of noncriminal sanctions are necessary to give primary consideration to the needs of the kid (Cadwell 1966, 358).

It is of import to note that each country determines its own jurisdictional age of "minors" handled by its juvenile arrangement. Most involve children who are under 18 years of age. A few states use college ages, up to twenty-one, usually for specific issues. In response to increasingly violent juvenile law-breaking, some states have lowered their upper age limit for juvenile jurisdiction to 15, and even xiv years of historic period.

While these principles were originally adopted for delinquents or minors who committed criminal acts, they have been broadly practical to proceedings involving children who are victims of corruption. Juvenile courts have jurisdiction over 3 types of minors:

Delinquents.

Status offenders.

Dependent children.

Delinquents are minors who accept committed criminal offenses. Status offenders appoint in acts that are non problematic if committed past an adult, such equally truancy, running away from home, or incorrigible behavior. Dependent children are those who are in demand of land intervention because of abuse or neglect by their caretakers.

ABUSE AND Fail PROCEEDINGS

While the process is basically the same for delinquents as well 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 normally initiated past filing a petition with the courtroom.
A petition is a formal pleading that alleges that the parents or custodians endangered the health or welfare of the kid.

The petition may allege neglect, concrete, emotional or sexual abuse of the child and gives the juvenile court say-so to act.

Detention hearings in kid maltreatment . One time the petition is filed, many jurisdictions hold a show cause or detention hearing. This hearing is unremarkably conducted inside 20-four to forty-viii hours after filing the petition or the emergency removal of the child. The detention hearing requires child protective services or police to produce show justifying the emergency removal of the child, or to present evidence that would allow the court to guild the removal of the child if he or she is nevertheless 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 court orders child protective services to conduct an investigation to decide where the child should be placed as a effect of the admissions by the parents.

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

Pending this hearing, the court may order the kid temporarily placed in a living arrangement exterior the dwelling house.

Child abuse and neglect adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing . An adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing is used to make up one's mind if there is sufficient evidence to determine whether the allegations in the petition are truthful. At the decision of this hearing, the court will return its determination. If the petition is upheld, the court sets a appointment for a dispositional hearing. If the petition is not upheld, the child is returned to the parents and the case is dismissed.

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

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

The state is represented past a juvenile prosecutor, land'due south advocate, county counsel or other governmental chaser.

The parents have a right to cantankerous examine witnesses and present any testify they want in rebuttal to the state's prove.
At the cease of the hearing, both parties may present arguments in favor of their position.

The burden of proof to uphold the abuse or neglect 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 normally defined as slightly more than fifty percent. A criminal case requires proof across a reasonable doubt. This is not proof beyond all doubt, but it is proof of the "material facts to a moral certainty" that they did occur.

In juvenile dependency cases, in club to remove the child from the custody of his or her parents, some jurisdictions require proof by clear and convincing evidence. This is more than than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than beyond a reasonable doubtfulness (Otterson 1979).

One time the adjudicatory or jurisdictional hearing is concluded, the next hearing to occur is the dispositional hearing. This hearing is to decide where the kid should be placed. The court will decide whether the child should be immediately returned to his or her parents or placed in an out of home surroundings for a period of time. The guiding principle in this hearing is "the all-time interests of the child." If the court orders the kid placed outside the home, it may schedule periodic reviews to determine if or when the child will exist 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 across, every party in the action has certain rights. The parents and the child each has distinct rights that must be observed and protected. These rights include:

Discover.

An opportunity to be heard and present prove.

The correct to face and cross-examine witnesses.

Effective representation by an chaser.

In a dependency hearing, the rights of a child include appointing an chaser who will speak on behalf of the child. This attorney must represent what he or she believes is in the best interests of the kid regardless of what CPS or the parents' abet believes is appropriate. In some jurisdictions this is a government-funded attorney; in others, information technology is a private attorney appointed by the courtroom to correspond the kid. Depending on the case, the attorney may side with the parents and argue for return of the child to their care, or the attorney may have the position that it is in the best interests of the kid 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 after a reasonable time.

Many jurisdictions additionally appoint Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), or similarly trained (typically non-chaser) individuals. The role of these child advocates is to nowadays to the courtroom an contained analysis of what is best for the child. This is particularly of import; as the child'due south legal representative, the court-appointed lawyer must forwards the child'due south wishes when an objective view would exist to the contrary. For case, the lawyer may decide that he or she must vigorously advocate a juvenile's wish to return abode, while an independent child advocate may decide that this is not actually in the child'south all-time involvement.

During dependency hearings, parents accept a correct to observe of the hearing, an opportunity to be present at that hearing and to be represented by an attorney. They may present any evidence they want to rebut the charges. If the child is removed from their custody, they have the right in nigh jurisdictions to a re-unification programme that will allow them to regain custody of the child in one case they have finished handling or counseling or complied with other court orders.

VICTIMS' RIGHTS IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY MATTERS

Amid the virtually chop-chop changing areas in the victim help field is the extension of victim rights in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Historically, juvenile courts have been closed proceedings and records have been generally confidential. Fifty-fifty the victim was unable to learn much, if anything, nigh the progress of a case confronting the juvenile who allegedly offended against them. Juvenile delinquency proceedings are analogous, in many ways, to adult criminal trials, with all the typical obstacles to victim participation. The juvenile court's confidentiality provisions for declared delinquents exacerbate these obstacles tremendously.

Many states accept, or are, considering rolling back their previously hard and fast confidentiality statutes. States like Connecticut, Missouri, and Arizona have gone further 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 offense.

Definition of Terms

Adjudicatory or Jurisdictional Hearing: Used to determine if there is sufficient show to find the allegations in the petition are truthful.

Delinquents: Those minors who accept committed criminal offenses.

Condition Offenders: Minors who are truant from schoolhouse, run away from habitation or are considered incorrigible.

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

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

Dispositional Hearing: To determine where the child should be placed.

Parens Patriae: Significant "the land is the parent," this doctrine is fundamental to the juvenile court's power to determine 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 order to a lower court to send the records of the example to the Supreme Court for review.

The Dual System of Courts in America

FEDERAL COURTS

U.S. Supreme Court