FAQ: Court Jurisdiction and Process

Transcription

1 What determines the jurisdiction and powers of a court system? The jurisdiction and powers of the court systems are specified and delineated by constitutions, statutes, or both (Neubauer, 2005). The federal judiciary is governed by the U.S. Constitution and federal laws while an individual state s laws and constitution govern that state s courts. Article III of the U.S. Constitution sets forth a brief outline of the powers of the federal judiciary. The U.S. Congress therefore needed to create statutes to establish the main structure and substance of the federal judicial system. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the foundation for our current judicial system. It set the boundaries of the district courts along state lines, ensured that federal district judges must be residents of their districts, and gave the lower federal courts only limited jurisdiction (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). The Court of Appeals Act of 1891 created the circuit courts of appeal to relieve the heavy caseload of the high court. In the 20th century, the U.S. Congress passed several bills that further established the current structure and practice of the federal courts, such as the Judges Bill of 1925, which gave the Supreme Court control over its own docket, and the Administrative Office Act of 1939, which created the current administrative structure of the courts (Neubauer, 2005). What is jurisdiction? The term jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a dispute. A court s jurisdiction can be divided into three main categories: geographical jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and hierarchical jurisdiction. Geographical jurisdiction refers to the way in which courts are given the power to hear and decide cases that arise within a particular geographical area (Neubauer, 2005). Subject matter jurisdiction means that courts may have specific restrictions on the subject matter that they are allowed to decide (Neubauer, 2005). For example, trial courts of limited jurisdiction are limited to hearing cases within a specific category of cases, such as misdemeanors. Courts of general jurisdiction, in contrast, may hear cases relating to any subject matter that arises within their area of geographical jurisdiction. Hierarchical jurisdiction relates to differences in the specified function and responsibility of the court, such as differences in the roles of a trial court and appellate court (Neubauer, 2005). A court that has the authority to initially try and decide a case has original jurisdiction; in contrast, a court that has appellate jurisdiction has the authority to review cases that have already been decided by another court. 1

2 What are the main entities involved in the administration of the federal courts? The main entities involved in the administration of the federal courts are the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Judicial Conference, the judicial councils, the Federal Judicial Center, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). Furthermore, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has the authority to supervise the entire federal judicial system. The Administrative Office Act of 1939 created the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, established judicial councils, and extended the responsibilities of the Judicial Conference (Neubauer, 2005). Judicial councils are the basic administrative unit of a circuit with both district and appellate judicial membership, which create the policy for caseload administration within a circuit (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). The Federal Judicial Center, specializing in judicial research and training, was created in 1967 (Neubauer, 2005). In 1984, the Sentencing Commission was directed to develop sentencing guidelines for the judiciary (Neubauer, 2005). How do the criminal cases heard at the federal level differ from those heard at the state level? Federal courts have jurisdiction over criminal cases involving federal questions (federal statute or the U.S. Constitution) while state courts have jurisdiction over violations of state criminal statutes. There are a number of offenses that are the subject of both federal and state statutes, so this means that there are a number of criminal cases over which both the state and federal courts potentially have jurisdiction (Neubauer, 2005). When criminal offenses violate both state and federal laws, federal prosecutors tend to handle the more serious violations while state officials prosecute the more minor offenses. In practice, federal courts hear a high percentage of complex, large-scale drug distribution cases, white-collar crime cases, and interstate crimes (Neubauer, 2005). State courts primarily address street crimes, such as murder, robbery, burglary or rape. In recent years, state courts have been dealing with a rising caseload of drug-related offenses (Neubauer, 2005). What is the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts? The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) was created by the U.S. Congress in 1939 to manage the administrative tasks of the federal courts (Neubauer, 2005). The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 2

3 director of the AO to implement the policies of the Judicial Conference (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). The AO acts as the official representative of the Judicial Conference in Congress presenting the budget requests for the federal judiciary, advocating for increased judgeships, and reporting on proposed changes to the court rules (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). The AO also audits and disburses money to operate and maintain the federal courts, conducts studies of court issues, and compiles statistical data on federal court operations in an annual report (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). How does a party appeal a case? Generally, the losing party may begin the appeals process once a final judgment has been obtained by the lower court. In a small percentage of cases, there might be an issue that must be decided before the lower court can complete the trial and render its final decision in those cases, a party might file what is called an interlocutory appeal (Neubauer, 2005). The losing party must argue that the trial court committed an error in its application of the law; the appellate court will not consider questions concerning the facts of the case. There are different procedures for filing an appeal in each of the federal and 51 state legal systems, but they tend to follow a similar model (Differences Between Federal and State Court Systems, n.d.). The losing party to the case sets an appeal in motion by filing a notice of appeal within a certain length of time after the final decision of the lower court. After the notice of appeal has been filed, the court record is prepared and transmitted to the appellate court. Documents, exhibits, and other items from the case file are sent to the appellate court along with a transcript of the testimony given at trial (Neubauer, 2005). Next, the parties to the appeal submit legal briefs, setting forth their arguments regarding the alleged errors of the lower court. Lawyers for both parties are then given the opportunity to present oral arguments in front of the appellate justices some jurisdictions have eliminated the oral argument phase entirely to make the appellate process more efficient (Differences Between Federal and State Court Systems, n.d.). After the court has had the chance to see and hear the arguments of the party, the justices confer to decide whether a majority of the court finds that the lower court committed an error and whether to affirm or reverse the decision of the lower court. A justice from the majority will then write the opinion of the court. 3

4 What is the difference between a question of law and a question of fact? A trial court will establish the facts of a case and apply the law accordingly. In a jury trial, juries will generally determine the facts while the trial judge determines legal issues that arise in the case, such as whether certain evidence is admissible at the trial (What is the Difference Between Trial Courts and the Appellate Courts?, n.d.). It is important to note that there is not a new trial at the appellate level; the appeals court focuses on the questions of law that have been appealed. If the case is appealed, the appellate court will look at whether errors of law were made by the trial court and does not revisit the factual determinations of the trial court. For example, in a murder case, asking whether a person died or whether the defendant killed that person are questions of fact. The appellate court would only review questions of law regarding that case such as whether the judge correctly admitted testimony into evidence. The division between questions of law and questions of fact can be difficult to ascertain (What is the Difference Between Trial Courts and the Appellate Courts?, n.d.). In some cases, an error of law, such as improperly excluding exculpatory evidence, can affect the trial court s determination of the facts of the case. In some cases, the appellate court might rule on the legal error and remand the case to the lower court to make a new determination. Do all states have an intermediate court of appeals? Only 39 states have intermediate courts of appeals (ICAs) (Neubauer, 2005). Texas and Oklahoma even have two different types of ICAs one for civil cases and the other for criminal cases (Neubauer, 2005). Initially, even the federal court system did not have an ICA. Instead, there was only a single appellate court, which was a court of last resort, or Supreme Court. However, as the federal case load increased over time, the high court became overburdened by appeals. Congress created the intermediate courts of appeal in 1891 to relieve the burden on the Supreme Court, thus creating the threetier system of courts that is in effect through current times (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). The state court systems that do not have ICAs tend to be sparsely populated, and thus have a lighter caseload of appeals (Neubauer, 2005). 4

5 How many judges hear an appellate case? Unlike a trial case where one judge presides over the case, an appellate case is heard by a group of justices. Essentially, the decisions of the single trial court judge are reviewed by a panel of judges, who can focus on the legal questions raised. The number of justices who sit on an appellate court depends upon the court system. In intermediate courts of appeal, decisions generally are made by a rotating panel of judges drawn from a larger body of state appellate judges. For example, Florida has five District Courts of Appeal with a total of 61 intermediate appellate justices, and most cases are heard by a three-judge panel (Neubauer, 2005). In important cases, all of the intermediate appellate justices might participate in the case, which is called an en banc hearing (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). Typically, all of the justices of the Supreme Court, or court of last resort, will participate in each hearing. In the U.S. Supreme Court, all nine Supreme Court justices review almost all cases (Neubauer, 2005). What is the process for appealing a decision to a court of last resort? Courts of last resort, or supreme courts, in the federal and state systems hear far fewer cases than the intermediate courts of appeal. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court usually only reviews about 26 criminal decisions in a year (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). Supreme courts generally restrict their review of cases to important constitutional questions. In recent years, the federal and state supreme courts have gained attention as policymakers in a number of complicated areas such as same-sex marriage and environmental issues. The U.S. Supreme Court and state courts have some small areas of original jurisdiction, but for the most part, they only take cases that have already been reviewed by a lower appellate court (Neubauer, 2005). The U.S. Supreme Court may elect to take appeals from the federal circuit courts or from the state supreme courts (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). Generally, the losing party to the appeal files a petition for a writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari is an order requiring the lower court to send the case records to the Supreme Court for review (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). The justices review these petitions and decide which cases to take. In the U.S. Supreme Court, four judges must vote to hear a case before a writ of certiorari is granted and the case is then placed on their docket (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2003). 5

6 References Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (2003). Understanding the federal courts. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from Differences between federal and state court systems. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2007, from Neubauer, D. W. (2005). America s courts and the criminal justice system (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. What is the difference between trial courts and the appellate courts? (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2007, from difference.html 6