Federal 

Courts

&What

 They Do
Contents

What Is a Court? 1

What Is a Federal Court? 2

What Kinds of Federal Courts Are There? 2

Map: Geographical Boundaries of U.S. Courts of Appeals and 

U.S. District Courts 3

Who Sets Up the Federal Court System? 4

What’s the Difference Between Civil Cases and Criminal Cases? 4

What Kinds of Cases Are Tried in State Courts? 5

What Kinds of Cases Are Tried in Federal Courts? 6

How Does a Case Come into a Federal Court? 7

Is There a Trial for Every Case? 8

Diagram: The Court Systems of the United States 9 

May I Watch a Trial in Progress? 10

What Is the Purpose of the Trial? 10

Who Are the People in the Courtroom? 12

What Happens During a Trial? 15

What Happens After the Trial or Guilty Plea? 20

What Are Some of the Most Noteworthy Facts and Concepts You 

Should Remember About the Federal Courts? 24

Glossary 25



Federal Courts and What They Do

Welcome to the U.S. Courthouse. During your visit, you’ll see judges and their staffs, jurors, lawyers, and people who are 

involved in court cases. This pamphlet answers some of the questions visitors to the federal courts ask most often. It will help you 

understand what you see and hear in the courthouse. Of course, 

legal proceedings are often complex, and a pamphlet such as this 

may not answer all of your questions.

In the back is a glossary of legal terms that you’ll find in this 

pamphlet. You’ll probably hear many of these terms if you attend 

a proceeding in the courthouse. If you’re confused by any of the 

words printed in boldface in this pamphlet, look in the glossary for 

a simple explanation.

What Is a Court?

A court is an institution that the government sets up to settle disputes through a legal process. People bring their disputes to court 

to resolve their disagreements: Did Bill Jones run a red light before 

his car ran into John Smith’s, or was the light green, as he says it 

was? Did Frank Williams rob the bank, or was it someone else?

Courts decide what really happened and what should be done 

about it. They decide whether a person committed a crime and 

what the punishment should be. They also provide a peaceful way 

to decide private disputes that people can’t resolve themselves. 

Sometimes, a court decision affects other people in addition to 

those involved in the lawsuit. In 1965, three high school students 

in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing 

black arm bands to protest the war in Vietnam. They asked a court 

to declare the rule against arm bands invalid. The Supreme Court 

decided in the case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District, that the 

rule violated the students’ constitutional right of freedom of expression. That decision affected the right of public school students 

all over the country to express their views in a nondisruptive manner. The Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education had an even more widespread effect. The case involved a 

dispute between the parents of Linda Brown and their local board 

of education in Topeka, Kansas. The Court decided that requiring 

white children and black children to go to separate schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.


Federal Courts and What They Do

What Is a Federal Court?

You probably realize that there are both federal courts and state 

courts. The two kinds of courts are a result of a principle of our 

Constitution called federalism. Federalism gives some functions to 

the United States government and leaves the other functions to the 

states. The functions of the U.S.—or federal—government involve 

the nation as a whole and include regulating commerce between 

the states and with foreign countries, providing for the national 

defense, and administering federal lands and other property. State 

governments perform most of the functions you probably associate with “government,” such as running the schools, managing the 

police departments, and paving the streets.

Federal courts are established by the U.S. government to decide disputes concerning the federal Constitution and laws passed 

by Congress, called statutes. State courts are established by a state, 

or by a county or city within the state. Although state courts must 

enforce the federal Constitution and laws, most of the cases they 

decide involve the constitution and laws of the particular state.

What Kinds of Federal Courts Are There?

Of all the federal courts, the U.S. district courts are the most numerous. Congress has divided the country into ninety-four federal 

judicial districts, and in each district there is a U.S. district court. 

The U.S. district courts are the federal trial courts—the places 

where federal cases are tried, witnesses testify, and juries serve. 

Within each district is a U.S. bankruptcy court, a part of the district court that administers the bankruptcy laws.

Congress has placed each of the ninety-four districts in one 

of twelve regional circuits, and each circuit has a court of appeals. 

If you lose a trial in a district court, you can ask the court of appeals to review the case to see if the judge applied the law correctly. 

Sometimes courts of appeals are also asked to review decisions of 

federal administrative agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board.

The map of the United States (on the facing page) shows 

the geographical boundaries of the ninety-four districts and the 

twelve regional circuits (eleven numbered circuits and the District 
Circuit boundaries

State boundariesDistrict boundaries

Legend

Conn. 9

10

5

8

7

4

3

1

2

6

Puerto Rico 1

Virgin Islands 3

D.C. Circuit 

Washington, D.C.

Alaska

Hawaii

9

Northern

Mariana

Islands

Guam

11

Geographical Boundaries of U.S. Courts of Appeals 

and U.S. District Courts

Federal Circuit

Washington, D.C.

as set forth by 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 81–131


Federal Courts and What They Do

of Columbia Circuit). There is also a Federal Circuit, whose court 

of appeals is based in Washington, D.C., but which hears certain 

types of cases from all over the country.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Washington, D.C., 

is the most famous federal court. If you lose a case in the court 

of appeals (or, sometimes, in a state supreme court), you can ask 

the Supreme Court to hear your appeal. However, unlike a court 

of appeals, the Supreme Court doesn’t have to hear it. In fact, the 

Supreme Court hears only a very small percentage of the cases it is 

asked to review.

Who Sets Up the Federal Court System?

Article III of the Constitution establishes a Supreme Court and 

authorizes whatever other federal courts Congress thinks are 

necessary. Congress creates the district courts and the courts of 

appeals, sets the number of judges in each federal court (including the Supreme Court), and determines what kinds of cases they 

will hear. (Congress has also created courts under Article I of the 

Constitution, such as military courts and the U.S. Tax Court. But 

judges of those courts decide only certain kinds of cases and do 

not have the judicial powers and protections of judges on courts 

created under Article III.)

What’s the Difference Between Civil Cases and 

Criminal Cases?

Civil cases are different from criminal cases. Civil cases usually 

involve disputes between persons or organizations while criminal 

cases involve some criminal action that is considered to be harmful to society as a whole.

Lawyers use the term party or litigant to describe a participant in a civil case. A person who claims that another person has 

failed to carry out a legal duty or violated his or her rights, such 

as those under the Constitution or other federal law, may ask the 

court to tell the person who violated the right to stop doing it and 

make compensation for any harm done. For example, Congress 

has passed a law saying that people have a right not to be denied 


Federal Courts and What They Do

employment because of their gender. Suppose an employer refuses 

to hire women as construction workers. Women who had applied 

and been qualified for jobs might bring a civil case against the employer—sue the employer—for lost wages and seek an order requiring the company to hire them.

Another legal duty is the duty to honor contracts. If a lumberyard promises to sell a specific amount of wood to a construction company for an agreed-upon price and then fails to deliver 

the wood, forcing the construction company to buy it elsewhere at 

a higher price, the construction company might sue the lumberyard for damages.

When a jury (or a judge in cases in which the defendant waived 

a jury) determines that an individual committed a crime, that person may be fined, sent to prison, or placed under the supervision 

of a court employee called a U.S. probation officer, or some combination of these three things. The person accused is charged in 

an indictment or information, which is a formal accusation that 

the person has committed a crime. The government, on behalf of 

the people, prosecutes the case. It is not the victim’s responsibility 

to bring a criminal case. In fact, there may not always be a specific 

victim. For example, the federal government prosecutes people accused of violating federal laws against spying because of the danger 

spying presents to the country as a whole. State governments arrest and prosecute people accused of violating laws against drunk 

driving because society regards drunk driving as a serious offense 

that can result in harm to innocent bystanders.

What Kinds of Cases Are Tried in State Courts?

State courts are essential to the administration of justice in the 

United States because they handle by far the largest number of cases and have the most contact with the public. State courts handle 

the cases that people are most likely to be involved in, such as robberies, traffic violations, broken contracts, and family disputes.

The state courts have such a heavy caseload because their general, unlimited jurisdiction allows them to decide almost every 

type of case. Jurisdiction refers to the kinds of cases a court is authorized to hear. In recent years, the annual number of state court 

cases has been roughly 50 million. By contrast, in the same period, 


Federal Courts and What They Do

about 2 million cases have been brought each year in the federal 

courts; approximately 80% of these were bankruptcy filings, 15% 

were civil cases, and the rest were criminal cases. The number of 

judges in each system further illustrates the difference: There are 

some 1,700 judges in the federal courts, but more than 30,000 in 

the state courts.

What Kinds of Cases Are Tried in Federal Courts?

As the preceding numbers suggest, federal courts do not have the 

same broad jurisdiction that state courts have. Federal court jurisdiction is limited to the specific types of cases listed in the Constitution and specifically provided for by Congress. For the most 

part, federal courts only hear cases in which the United States is 

a party, cases involving violations of the Constitution or federal 

laws, cases between citizens of different states, and some special 

kinds of cases, such as bankruptcy cases, patent cases, and cases 

involving maritime law.

Some cases are such that only federal courts have jurisdiction 

over them. In other cases, the parties can choose whether to go to 

state court or to federal court. In most cases, however, they can 

only go to state court.

Although the federal courts hear significantly fewer cases than 

the state courts, the cases they do hear tend more often to be of 

national importance, because of the federal laws they enforce and 

the federal rights they protect.

Most cases in federal courts are civil rather than criminal. 

As described earlier, one type of federal civil case might involve 

a claim by a private citizen that a company failed to carry out its 

duty under the law—for example, that the company refused to 

hire the person simply because she was a woman. Another kind of 

federal civil case might be a lawsuit by a private citizen claiming 

that he is entitled to receive money under a government program, 

such as benefits from Social Security. A third type of federal civil 

lawsuit might require the court to decide whether a corporation is 

violating federal laws by having a monopoly over a certain kind of 

business.

Appeals for review of actions by federal administrative agencies are also federal civil cases. Suppose, for example, that the En-


Federal Courts and What They Do

vironmental Protection Agency issued a permit to a paper mill to 

discharge water used in its milling process into the Scenic River, 

over the objection of area residents. The residents could ask a federal court to review the agency’s decision. 

There are many more federal civil cases than criminal cases because most crimes concern problems that the Constitution leaves 

to the states. We all know, for example, that robbery is a crime. But 

what law says it is a crime? By and large, state laws, not federal laws, 

make robbery a crime. There are only a few federal laws about robbery, such as the law that makes it a federal crime to rob a bank 

whose deposits are insured by a federal agency. Examples of other 

federal crimes are sale or possession of illegal drugs and use of the 

U.S. mails to swindle consumers.

Federal courts also hear bankruptcy matters. Bankruptcy laws 

enable people or businesses who can no longer pay their creditors 

as their debts come due to organize their affairs, liquidate their 

debts or create a plan to pay them off, and get a fresh start. There 

is a whole code of laws that sets out how the parties involved in a 

bankruptcy case should proceed: the bankruptcy code. Bankruptcy judges decide matters that arise under the code.

How Does a Case Come into a Federal Court?

Courts can’t reach out to decide controversies on their own initiative. They must wait for someone to bring the controversy to 

them. Moreover, courts only decide legal controversies. They are 

not intended to decide every disagreement that individuals have 

with one another, or to give advice.

Civil cases. A federal civil case begins when someone—or 

more likely, someone’s lawyer—files a paper or electronic document with the clerk of the court that states a claim against another 

person believed to have committed a wrongful act. In legal terminology, the plaintiff files a complaint against the defendant. The 

defendant may then file an answer to the complaint. These written 

statements of the parties’ positions are called pleadings.

Criminal cases. Beginning a federal criminal case is more 

complicated. A criminal case usually begins when a lawyer for the 

executive branch of the U.S. government—the U.S. attorney or an 


Federal Courts and What They Do

assistant U.S. attorney—tells a federal grand jury about the evidence that, according to the government, indicates a person committed a crime. That person may or may not already have been 

arrested when the grand jury meets. The U.S. attorney will try to 

convince the grand jury that there is enough evidence to show that 

the person probably committed the crime and should be formally 

accused of it. If the grand jury agrees, it issues a formal accusation, 

called an indictment.

A grand jury is different from a trial jury, also called a petit 

jury. A grand jury determines whether the person should be released or held for further proceedings; a petit jury listens to the 

evidence presented at the trial and determines whether the defendant is guilty of the charge. “Petit” is the French word for “small”; 

petit juries usually consist of twelve jurors in criminal cases and 

from six to twelve jurors in civil cases. “Grand” is the French word 

for “large”; grand juries have from sixteen to twenty-three jurors.

After the grand jury issues the indictment, the accused person 

(the defendant) is arrested, if not already under arrest. The next 

step is an arraignment, where the defendant is brought before a 

judge and asked to plead “guilty” or “not guilty” of the crime. If the 

plea is “guilty,” a time is set for the defendant to return to court to 

be sentenced. If the defendant pleads “not guilty,” a time is set for 

the trial.

Grand jury indictments are most often used for felonies, 

which are the more serious crimes, such as bank robberies. Grand 

jury indictments are not usually necessary to prosecute less serious 

crimes, called misdemeanors, and are not necessary for all felonies. Instead, the U.S. attorney issues an information, which takes 

the place of an indictment. Typical misdemeanors are disturbing 

the peace (a state misdemeanor) and speeding on a highway in a 

national park (a federal misdemeanor).

Is There a Trial for Every Case?

Although there is an absolute right to trial in both civil and criminal cases, trials are often emotionally and financially costly, and a 

person may not want to exercise the right to trial. So usually the 

parties agree to settle the case without going to trial. Some civil 

cases are decided by the judge, who may decide based on the facts 


Federal Courts and What They Do

The Court Systems of the United States

The Federal Courts The Supreme Court

of the United States

The State Courts

Administrative

Agencies

U.S. Court

of International

Trade

U.S. Court

of Federal 

Claims

U.S. District

Courts

Bankruptcy

Judges

U.S. Magistrate

Judges

General

Jurisdiction

Trial

Courts

Limited and 

Specialized

Jurisdiction

Courts

U.S. Court

of Appeals

for the Federal

Circuit

Regional

U.S. Courts

of Appeals

Supreme

Courts

Intermediate

Courts

of Appeals

 


Federal Courts and What They Do

presented that there is no need to have a trial. Thus, more than 

nine out of ten civil cases never come to trial, and about eight out 

of ten defendants in criminal cases plead guilty rather than stand 

trial. If you watch a trial in progress, remember that what you’re 

seeing is only one part—though a very important part—of the 

total legal process.

May I Watch a Trial in Progress?

The federal courts are open to the public and have always encouraged citizens to observe trials and other public proceedings. Be 

sure to remember when you’re in the courtroom that the trial is 

very important to the parties involved, who may lose their freedom or gain or lose a great deal of money as a result of the court’s 

decision. Behave in a manner befitting the formality of the courtroom. Don’t talk or laugh during the proceedings, and stand when 

the judge enters or leaves the courtroom. Exit quietly if the court 

is still in session when you leave, and comply with the federal court 

rules that forbid spectators to take photographs or use tape recorders while the court is in session.

What Is the Purpose of the Trial?

Role of judge and jury. If the parties in a civil case can’t agree on 

how to settle the case on their own, or if a defendant in a criminal 

case pleads not guilty, the court will decide the dispute through a 

trial. In a civil case, the purpose of a trial is to find out whether the 

defendant failed to fulfill a legal duty to the plaintiff. In a criminal 

case, the purpose of a trial is to determine whether the defendant 

committed the crime charged.

If the parties choose to have a jury trial, determining the facts 

is the task of the petit jury. If they decide not to have a jury and 

to leave the fact-finding to the judge, the trial is called a bench 

trial. In either kind of trial, the judge makes sure the correct legal 

standards are followed. If there is a jury, the judge tells the jury 

what the law governing the case is. For example, in a robbery case 

in which an unloaded gun was used, the judge would tell the jury 

that using an unloaded gun to rob a store is legally the same as us-
Federal Courts and What They Do

ing a gun that is loaded. But the jury would have to decide whether 

the defendant on trial was actually the person who committed the 

robbery and used the gun.

Adversary process. Courts use the adversary process to help 

them reach a decision. Through this process, each side in a dispute 

presents its most persuasive arguments to the fact finder (judge or 

jury) and emphasizes the facts that support its case. Each side also 

draws attention to any flaws in its opponent’s arguments. The fact 

finder then decides the case. American judicial tradition holds that 

the truth will be reached most effectively through this adversary 

process.

The evidence the jury (or judge, in a bench trial) relies on to 

decide the case consists of two types: (1) physical evidence, such 

as documents, photographs, and objects, and (2) the testimony of 

witnesses who are questioned by the lawyers.

Standards of proof. The courts, through their decisions, and 

Congress, through statutes, have established standards by which 

facts must be proven in criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases 

(federal or state), the defendant may be convicted only if the jury 

(or judge, in a bench trial) believes that the government has proved 

the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Remember that 

for the grand jury to issue an indictment, it only has to believe that 

the defendant probably committed the crime. But for the petit jury 

to find the defendant guilty, it must be certain that the defendant 

committed the crime; it can have no “reasonable doubt” about it. A 

jury verdict must be unanimous, meaning that all jurors must vote 

either “guilty” or “not guilty.” If the jurors cannot agree, the judge 

declares a mistrial, and the prosecutor must then decide whether 

to ask the court to dismiss the case or have it presented to another 

jury.

In civil cases, in order to decide for the plaintiff, the jury must 

determine by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the defendant 

failed to perform a legal duty and violated the plaintiff’s rights. A 

preponderance of the evidence means that more of the evidence 

favors the plaintiff’s position than favors the defendant’s.

Much of the way our court system works can be traced back 

to developments in England in the seventeenth century, at the time 

when America was a group of English colonies. During that centu-
Federal Courts and What They Do

ry, England abolished the hated Court of the Star Chamber, a court 

that was tied closely to the prosecutor and that brought enemies 

of the king to trial for treason and other serious crimes, invariably 

finding them guilty. A century of criminal justice reforms in England resulted in a number of protections for individuals accused 

of crimes and adoption of the idea that courts should make their 

judgments free of pressure from prosecutors. American courts inherited these traditions from England and incorporated them into 

our judicial system.

Who Are the People in the Courtroom?

The judge. The judge presides over the trial from a desk, called 

a bench, on an elevated platform. The judge has five basic tasks. 

The first is simply to preside over the proceedings and see that order is maintained. The second is to determine whether any of the 

evidence that the parties want to use is illegal or improper. Third, 

before the jury begins its deliberations about the facts in the case, 

the judge gives the jury instructions about the law that applies to 

the case and the standards it must use in deciding the case. Fourth, 

in bench trials, the judge must also determine the facts and decide 

the case. The fifth is to sentence convicted criminal defendants.

Federal appellate and district judges are appointed to office 

by the President of the United States, with the approval of the U.S. 

Senate. Federal judges come from a variety of professional backgrounds. Some were private attorneys before they were appointed. 

Some were judges in state courts, federal magistrate or bankruptcy 

judges, or U.S. attorneys. A few were law professors. Once they become judges, they are strictly prohibited from working as lawyers. 

They must be careful not to do anything that might cause people 

to think they would favor one side in a case over another. For this 

reason, they can’t give speeches urging voters to pick one candidate 

over another for public office, or ask people to contribute money 

to civic organizations.

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal judges serve 

“during good behavior.” Therefore, they may be removed from 

their jobs only if Congress determines, through a lengthy process 

called impeachment and conviction, that they are guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Congress 


Federal Courts and What They Do

has found it necessary to use this process only a few times in the 

history of our country. From a practical standpoint, almost all 

federal judges hold office for as long as they wish. Article III also 

prohibits lowering the salaries of federal judges “during their continuance in office.”

The Constitution includes both of these protections—life 

tenure and unreduced salary—so that federal judges will not fear 

losing their jobs or having their pay cut if they make an unpopular decision. Sometimes the courts decide that a law that has been 

passed by Congress and signed by the President, or a law that has 

been passed by a state, violates the Constitution and should not 

be enforced. For example, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown 

v. Board of Education in 1954 declared racial segregation in public 

schools to be unconstitutional. This decision was not popular with 

large segments of society when it was handed down. Some members of Congress even wanted to replace the judges who made the 

decision. The Constitution wouldn’t let them do so, and today, almost everyone realizes that the decision was right.

The constitutional protection of federal judges that gives 

them the freedom and independence to make decisions that are 

politically and socially unpopular is one of the basic elements of 

our democracy. According to the Declaration of Independence, 

one reason the American colonies wanted to separate from England was that King George III “made judges dependent on his will 

alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment 

of their salaries.”

Bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges are appointed by 

the courts they serve. They conduct some of the proceedings held 

in federal courts. They also assist the district judges. Bankruptcy 

judges handle almost all bankruptcy matters. Magistrate judges 

often conduct proceedings before trial to help prepare the district 

judges’ cases for trial. They also may preside over misdemeanor 

trials and may preside over civil trials when both parties agree to 

have the case heard by a magistrate judge instead of a district judge. 

Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges don’t have the same protections as judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution.

The jury. The group of people seated in the boxed-in area on 

one side of the courtroom is the petit jury or trial jury. You won’t 
Federal Courts and What They Do

be able to observe the grand jury during your visit because its proceedings are always secret.

Juries were first used hundreds of years ago in England. The 

jury was a factor in the events that led to the Revolutionary War. 

The Declaration of Independence charged that King George III deprived the colonists “in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury.” 

Thus, our Constitution now guarantees the right to a jury trial to 

most defendants in criminal cases and to the parties in most civil 

cases.

In federal criminal cases, there are usually twelve jurors and 

between one and six alternate jurors. Alternate jurors replace regular jurors who become ill, disqualified, or unable to perform their 

duties. In federal civil cases there can be from six to twelve jurors. 

Unlike in criminal cases, there are no alternate jurors. All of the 

jurors are required to join in the verdict unless the court excuses a 

juror from service during the trial or deliberations.

The lawyers. The lawyers for each party will either be sitting at 

the counsel tables facing the bench or be speaking to the judge, a 

witness, or the jury. Each lawyer’s task is to bring out the facts that 

put his or her client’s case in the most favorable light, but to do 

so using approved legal procedures. In criminal cases, one of the 

lawyers works for the executive branch of the government, which 

is the branch that prosecutes cases on behalf of society. In federal 

criminal cases, that lawyer is the U.S. attorney or an assistant U.S. 

attorney. A U.S. attorney is chosen by the President, with the approval of the Senate, for each of the ninety-four judicial districts. 

The U.S. attorney also represents the United States in civil cases in 

which the U.S. government is a party.

Under the Constitution, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, persons accused of serious crimes who can’t afford to hire a 

lawyer may have lawyers appointed to represent them. In the federal courts, these lawyers are usually from the Federal Defenders 

Office, a federal agency, or from private defense organizations, or 

from panels of private lawyers deemed qualified to represent such 

persons. Although the judge may appoint these lawyers, and they 

are usually paid with public funds, they don’t work for the judge—

they work for their client, the defendant.

On relatively rare occasions, defendants in criminal cases or 

parties in civil cases attempt to present their cases themselves, 
Federal Courts and What They Do

without using a lawyer. Parties who act on their own behalf are 

said to act pro se, a Latin phrase meaning “on one’s own behalf.”

The parties. The parties may or may not be present at the counsel tables with their lawyers. Defendants in criminal cases have a 

constitutional right to be present. Specifically, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “the accused shall enjoy the 

right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Parties 

in civil cases may be present if they wish, but are often absent.

The witnesses. Witnesses give testimony about the facts in the 

case that are in dispute. During their testimony, they sit on the witness stand, facing the courtroom. Because the witnesses are asked 

to testify by one party or the other, they are often referred to as 

plaintiff’s witnesses, government witnesses, or defense witnesses.

The courtroom deputy or clerk. The courtroom deputy or 

courtroom clerk, who is usually seated near the judge, administers 

the oaths to the witnesses, marks the exhibits, and generally helps 

the judge keep the trial running smoothly. Sometimes the deputy 

or clerk is away from the courtroom performing other tasks during parts of the trial. The courtroom deputy is employed by the 

office of the clerk of court. The clerk of court is appointed by all 

of the judges on the court and works closely with the chief district 

judge, who is responsible for the court’s overall administration.

The court reporter. The court reporter sits near the witness 

stand and usually types the official record of the trial (everything 

that is said or introduced into evidence) on a stenographic machine. (In some courts, the official record is taken on an electronic 

recorder.) Federal law requires that a word-for-word record be 

made of every trial. The court reporter also produces a written 

transcript of the proceedings if either party appeals the case or 

requests a transcript to review.

What Happens During a Trial?

Pretrial activity in civil cases. In most cases, the lawyers and judge 

agree before trial, often at pretrial conferences, what issues are in 

dispute and must be decided by the jury and what issues are not 

in dispute. Both sides reveal whom they intend to call as witnesses 

and, generally, what evidence they will introduce at trial. However, 
Federal Courts and What They Do

just because they agree on these matters before the trial doesn’t 

mean that they agree on how the case should be decided. Rather, 

the judge holds a conference to avoid wasting time during the trial 

on issues that can be decided before.

During the pretrial discovery process, the lawyers try to learn 

as much as possible about their opponent’s case, as well as build 

their own case, by asking to inspect documents and talking to 

people who know something about what happened. If the lawyers 

have done a thorough job of preparing the case, they shouldn’t be 

surprised by any of the answers the opposing attorney’s witnesses 

give to their questions during trial. One of the basic rules trial lawyers follow is “Don’t ask a question if you don’t know what the answer will be.” The lawyers and witnesses for each side also prepare 

for the trial by rehearsing their questions and answers.

Frequently, all of this pretrial activity in a civil case results in 

a decision by both parties to settle the case without going through 

a trial. Settling does not necessarily mean that the parties have reconciled their dispute; they have merely agreed to a compromise 

out of court. Often it means that the plaintiff has agreed to accept 

an amount for damages that is less than the amount he or she 

originally claimed.

Pretrial activity in criminal cases. A good defense lawyer will 

also conduct a thorough investigation before trial in a criminal 

case, interviewing witnesses, visiting the scene of the crime, and 

examining any physical evidence. An important part of this investigation is determining whether the government can use certain items of evidence. For example, the government cannot use 

evidence that the defendant committed a previous crime to prove 

that the defendant committed a crime in another case. But there 

are some circumstances in which evidence of a previous crime 

may be used. Or, the defendant may argue that the government 

cannot use the defendant’s confession because it was obtained in 

violation of the defendant’s rights. Resolution of these evidentiary 

issues before the trial can result either in the government’s dropping the charges or in the defendant deciding to plead guilty. 

Jury selection. If the parties have chosen a jury trial, it begins 

with the selection of jurors. Citizens are selected for jury service 

through a process that is set out in laws passed by Congress and 
Federal Courts and What They Do

in rules adopted by the federal courts. First, citizens are called to 

court to be available to serve on juries. These citizens are selected 

at random from lists of all registered or actual voters in the district 

or from voter lists supplemented by some other sources of names, 

such as licensed drivers. The judge and the lawyers in each case 

then choose the persons who will actually serve on the jury.

To choose the jurors, the judge and sometimes the lawyers ask 

prospective jurors questions to determine if they will be able to 

decide the case fairly. This process is called voir dire. The lawyers 

may ask the judge to excuse any jurors they think may not be able 

to be impartial, such as those who know either party in the case or 

who have had an experience that might make them favor one side 

over the other. The lawyers may reject a certain number of jurors 

without giving any justification. Lawyers may not, however, reject 

jurors on the basis of race or gender.

Opening statements. Once the jury has been selected, the lawyers for both sides give their opening statements. The purpose of 

the opening statements is to allow each side to present its version 

of the evidence to be offered.

Direct and cross-examination. Introduction of evidence begins 

after the opening statements. First, the government’s attorney, or 

the plaintiff’s lawyer, questions his or her witnesses. When lawyers 

question the witnesses whom they have called to testify, it is called 

direct examination. After the direct examination of a government 

or plaintiff’s witness, the defendant’s lawyer may question the witness; this is called cross-examination. If, after the cross-examination, the plaintiff’s lawyer wants to ask additional questions, he or 

she may do so on a redirect examination, after which the defendant’s lawyer has an opportunity for a re–cross-examination. After all of the plaintiff’s witnesses have been examined, the defense 

calls its witnesses, and the same procedures are repeated.

The lawyers often introduce documents, such as bank records, 

or objects, such as firearms, as additional evidence. These items are 

called exhibits.

Inadmissible evidence. The courts have established rules that 

must be observed in court proceedings to determine facts. For 

example, the Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant’s out-ofcourt confession to a crime may not be used in a trial as evidence 
Federal Courts and What They Do

of the defendant’s guilt if the confession resulted from coercion. 

The courts adopted this rule because forced confessions obviously 

aren’t trustworthy. 

The federal courts have also adopted a rule to prevent repeated injuries to others following a plaintiff’s injury. To encourage the 

defendant to repair the faulty condition that may have caused the 

injury, the rule forbids the introduction of any evidence of such 

repair, which could be seen as an admission of guilt. Thus, a lawyer 

for a plaintiff who slipped on a wet sidewalk cannot introduce evidence that the defendant put up a “slippery when wet” sign after 

the plaintiff’s accident. Without this rule, the act of putting up 

the sign could be interpreted as an admission that the sign should 

have been there at the time of the plaintiff’s accident and that the 

defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff of the hazardous condition. Such an admission would damage the defendant’s case.

Another rule concerning the introduction of evidence prohibits the use of secondhand testimony, called hearsay. Under this 

rule, witnesses may not testify to something that they heard about 

from someone else. If John Smith, for example, testified, “Bill 

Jones told me he saw Frank Williams rob the Green Valley Bank,” 

the testimony would be inadmissible as evidence. The courts have 

decided that hearsay is usually not very reliable and, therefore, 

cannot be used as evidence in a trial.

Sometimes a lawyer will break one of these rules, either inadvertently or on purpose, and will try to present evidence to the 

jury that it shouldn’t be permitted to hear. If an opposing lawyer 

believes that testimony asked for or already given is improper, the 

lawyer may object to it and may ask the judge to instruct the witness not to answer the question or to tell the jury to disregard an 

answer that has already been given. The judge can either sustain 

the objection and do as the objecting lawyer requests, or overrule 

it and permit the testimony. When an objection is made, the judge 

alone decides whether the testimony is admissible.

Occasionally, the judge and the lawyers for both sides confer 

at the bench—sometimes called at sidebar—out of the jury’s earshot but with the court reporter present to record what they say. 

At other times, they might confer in the judge’s chambers. Often, 

they are discussing whether a certain piece of evidence is admissible. The court doesn’t want the jurors to hear such a discussion 
Federal Courts and What They Do

because they might hear something that can’t be admitted into 

evidence and that might prejudice them in favor of one side or the 

other.

Closing arguments and instructions. After the evidence has 

been presented, the lawyers make their closing arguments to the 

jury, concluding the presentation of their cases. Like the opening statements, the closing arguments don’t present evidence but 

summarize the most important features of each side’s case. Following the closing arguments, the judge gives instructions to the 

jury, explaining the relevant law, how the law applies to the case 

being tried, and what questions the jury must decide. The jury 

then retires to the jury room to discuss the evidence and to reach a 

verdict. In criminal cases, the jury’s verdict must be unanimous. In 

civil cases, the verdict must also be unanimous, unless the parties 

have agreed before the trial that they will accept a verdict that is 

not unanimous.

By serving on a jury, citizens have a unique opportunity to 

participate directly in the operation of our government. Jurors 

serve as a direct voice of the community in the judicial branch. 

They also make a vital contribution to the smooth functioning of 

our judicial system. To encourage citizens to participate, the courts 

try to make jury service as comfortable and rewarding as possible.

Posttrial matters and sentencing. In federal criminal cases, if 

the jury (or judge, if there is no jury) decides that the defendant 

is guilty, the judge sets a date for imposing the sentence. In federal 

courts, the jury doesn’t decide the punishment; the judge does. 

But the judge’s determination is controlled by sentencing statutes 

passed by Congress and assisted by a set of guidelines, called sentencing guidelines, which take into account the nature of the particular offense and the offender’s criminal history. A presentence 

report, prepared by one of the court’s probation officers, assists 

the judge in determining the proper sentence under the applicable 

rules and guidelines.

In civil cases, if the jury (or judge) decides in favor of the 

plaintiff, the jury (or judge) usually orders the defendant to pay 

the plaintiff money (damages) or to take some specific action that 

will restore the plaintiff’s rights. If the defendant wins the case, 

however, there is nothing more the trial court needs to do.


Federal Courts and What They Do

What Happens After the Trial or Guilty Plea?

A defendant who is found guilty in a federal criminal trial and the 

losing party in a federal civil case both have a right to appeal their 

case to the U.S. court of appeals. The grounds for appeal usually 

allege that the district judge made an error either in procedure 

(such as by admitting improper evidence) or in interpreting the 

law.

The government may not appeal if a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty, because the double jeopardy clause in 

the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no person 

shall “be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same offense. 

This reflects our society’s belief that, even if a second or third trial 

might finally find a defendant guilty, it is not proper to allow the 

government to harass an acquitted defendant through repeated retrials. The government may appeal in civil cases, as any other party 

may. Also, the losing party may not appeal if there was no trial—if 

the defendant decided to plead guilty or if the parties settled their 

civil case out of court. However, a defendant who pleads guilty 

may have the right to appeal his or her sentence. The government 

may also sometimes appeal a sentence.

An appeal in a federal criminal case usually proceeds in the 

following manner: Suppose a law is passed by Congress that prohibits demonstrations within 500 feet of any embassy. Following 

the enactment of the law, a group of six people stand on a street 

corner near the embassy of Malandia and ask passersby to sign a 

petition protesting Malandia’s foreign policy. The six people are 

arrested and charged with committing a federal misdemeanor. At 

trial, they testify that they were careful to stay more than 500 feet 

away from the embassy. However, the U.S. attorney calls a police 

officer as a witness, and he testifies that the corner they were standing on is within 500 feet of the embassy.

Before the trial jury begins its deliberations, the lawyer for the 

defendants asks the district judge to instruct the jury that collecting 

signatures on a petition is not a “demonstration” and, therefore, if 

that was all they did, they weren’t violating the law. The defendants’ lawyer also argues that the law violates the defendants’ First 

Amendment right to free speech, and therefore the case against 

them should be dismissed. The judge disagrees on both points. 
Federal Courts and What They Do

She instructs the jury that collecting signatures on a petition is a 

demonstration and refuses to dismiss the case, saying that Congress may prohibit demonstrations that pose a threat to foreign 

embassies without violating the First Amendment. To reach her 

decision, the judge consults precedents—similar cases that have 

already been decided by other courts. She pays special attention to 

prior decisions of the court of appeals for her circuit.

Because the judge has determined that collecting signatures is 

a demonstration and that Congress has the constitutional power 

to prohibit a demonstration near an embassy, she instructs the jury 

to decide, on the basis of the evidence, whether the defendants collected signatures within 500 feet of the embassy.

Suppose that the jury finds that the defendants did collect 

signatures within 500 feet of the embassy, and the defendants are 

convicted of violating the law. The defendants may then appeal 

this decision to the U.S. court of appeals. A court of appeals would 

rarely throw out the jury’s factual finding that the protesters were 

within 500 feet of the embassy. However, the court of appeals may 

decide that the district judge wrongly interpreted the law; it may 

decide that Congress didn’t intend for the law to prohibit gathering 

signatures on a petition. After deciding this, the court of appeals 

will probably determine that it doesn’t have to decide whether it 

was unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit demonstrations 

near embassies. That decision will have to wait for a case in which 

there is an actual demonstration.

If the court of appeals decides that the trial judge incorrectly 

interpreted the law, as in the example, then it will reverse the district court’s decision. In other words, the court of appeals will say 

that the district judge made a mistake in interpreting the law, and 

thus the defendants are not guilty after all. However, most of the 

time—but certainly not always—courts of appeals uphold, rather 

than reverse, district court decisions.

Sometimes when a higher court reverses the decision of the 

district court, it will send the case back to the district court for 

another trial, or in legal terms, remand it. For example, in the famous Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that Ernesto Miranda’s confession could not be used as evidence because he had not 

been advised of his right to remain silent or of his right to have a 

lawyer present during questioning. However, the government did 
Federal Courts and What They Do

have other evidence against him. The case was remanded for a new 

trial at which the improperly obtained confession was not used as 

evidence, and Miranda was convicted.

Appellate court procedure. The courts of appeals usually assign 

a panel of three judges to each case. The panel decides the case for 

the entire court. Sometimes, when the parties request it, or when 

there is a question of unusual importance, the entire appeals court, 

sitting en banc, will reconsider a panel’s decision or hear the case 

anew.

In making its decision, the panel reviews key parts of the record on appeal, which consists of all the documents filed in the 

case at trial along with the transcript of the proceedings at the trial. 

The panel then learns about the lawyers’ legal arguments from two 

sources. One is the lawyers’ briefs. Briefs are written documents 

(often anything but brief) that explain each side’s case and tell why 

the court should decide in its favor. The second source of information about the lawyers’ legal arguments is the oral argument. If 

the court permits oral argument, each side’s lawyers have a limited 

amount of time to explain its case to the judges in a formal courtroom session, and the judges frequently question them about the 

relevant law.

After the submission of briefs and oral argument, the judges 

discuss the case privately, consider any relevant precedents, and 

reach a decision. At least two of the three judges on the panel must 

agree with the decision. One of those who agree is chosen to write 

an opinion, which announces the decision and explains it. Any 

judge who disagrees with the majority’s opinion may file a dissenting opinion, giving his or her reasons for disagreeing. Many appellate opinions are published in books of opinions called reporters. 

The opinions are read carefully by other judges and lawyers looking for precedents to guide them in their own cases. The accumulated judicial opinions make up a body of law known as case 

law, which is usually an accurate predictor of how future cases will 

be decided. Increasingly, the courts of appeals use short, unsigned 

opinions, which often are not published, for decisions that, in 

the judges’ view, are important only to the parties and contribute 

nothing to the case law.


Federal Courts and What They Do

If you visit a court of appeals in session, you’ll notice how it 

differs from the federal trial courts. There are no jurors, witnesses, 

or court reporters. The lawyers for both sides are present, but the 

parties usually are not.

The Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court 

is the highest court in the nation. It is a different kind of appeals 

court—its major function is not correcting errors made by trial 

judges, but clarifying the law when other courts disagree about the 

interpretation of the Constitution or federal laws.

Unlike the U.S. courts of appeals, however, the Supreme Court 

does not have to hear every case that it is asked to review. The Supreme Court decides whether or not it will hear a case. Each year, 

losing parties ask the Supreme Court to review about 8,000 of the 

approximately 50 million cases handled by the state and federal 

courts. These cases come to the Court as petitions for writ of certiorari. The Court selects only about 80 of the most significant 

cases to review.

 The decisions the Supreme Court hands down on cases appealed from lower courts set precedents for the interpretation of 

the Constitution and federal laws that all other courts, both state 

and federal, must follow. This power of judicial review makes the 

Supreme Court’s role in our government vital. Judicial review is 

the power of any court, when deciding a case, to declare that a law 

passed by a legislature or an action of an executive official is invalid 

because it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Although district 

courts, courts of appeals, and state courts can exercise the power of 

judicial review, their decisions are always subject to review by the 

Supreme Court on appeal. When the Supreme Court declares a law 

unconstitutional, however, its decision can only be overruled by a 

later decision of the Supreme Court or by an amendment to the 

Constitution. Seven of the twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution have invalidated decisions of the Supreme Court. However, most Supreme Court cases don’t concern the constitutionality of laws but the interpretation of laws passed by Congress.

Although Congress has steadily increased the number of district and appeals court judges over the years, the Supreme Court 

has remained the same size since 1869, with a Chief Justice and 

eight associate justices. Like all federal judges, the justices are ap-
Federal Courts and What They Do

pointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

However, unlike the courts of appeals, the Supreme Court never 

sits in panels. All nine justices hear every case, and cases are decided by a majority ruling.

The Supreme Court begins its annual session or term on the 

first Monday of October. The term lasts until the Court has announced its decisions in all of the cases in which it has heard argument—usually until June. During the term, the Court, sitting 

for two weeks at a time, hears oral argument on Monday through 

Wednesday and then holds private conferences to discuss the cases, 

reach decisions, and begin preparing the opinions. Most decisions, 

with their opinions, are released in the late spring and early summer. 

The decisions of the Supreme Court affect the lives of millions of people, from magazine editors trying to decide whether 

publishing a disparaging article about a famous person may make 

them liable for damages, to taxpayers whose tax bill may be affected by rulings about state and federal tax laws. The widespread 

impact of some cases results in lively debates in the media. Rarely 

does everyone agree with an outcome. 

l l l

What Are Some of the Most Noteworthy Facts and 

Concepts You Should Remember About the Federal 

Courts? 

What is most noteworthy varies with an individual’s point 

of view, but everyone should find the following points worth 

remembering:

• Federal and state courts exist side by side. State courts are 

courts of general jurisdiction and decide many more cases 

than federal courts. The federal courts’ jurisdiction is much 

more limited than the state courts’ jurisdiction.

• Courts resolve disputes through the adversary process, at 

both the trial and appellate levels, and rely on precedents 

for guidance in making decisions.
Federal Courts and What They Do

• Every individual has an absolute right to bring a case in 

federal court (assuming the court has jurisdiction), along 

with an absolute right of appeal for review of the district 

court’s decision. Only in rare instances does a case go as far 

as the Supreme Court of the United States.

• In criminal cases, the courts provide legal assistance free 

of charge to defendants who cannot afford to pay for it 

themselves.

Glossary

ADVERSARY PROCESS—the method courts use to resolve 

disputes. Through the adversary process, each side in a dispute 

has the right to present its case as persuasively as possible, 

subject to the rules of evidence, and an independent fact finder, 

either judge or jury, decides in favor of one side or the other.

ANSWER—the formal written statement by a defendant in a civil 

case that responds to a complaint and sets forth the grounds 

for defense.

APPEAL—a request, made after a trial, asking another court 

(usually the court of appeals) to decide whether the trial was 

conducted properly. To make such a request is “to appeal” or 

“to take an appeal.”

ARRAIGNMENT (pronounced a-rain-ment)—a proceeding in 

which an individual who is accused of committing a crime 

is brought into court, told of the charges, and asked to plead 

guilty or not guilty.

BANKRUPTCY—refers to federal statutes and judicial proceedings 

involving persons or businesses that cannot pay their debts and 

thus seek the assistance of the court in getting a “fresh start.” 

Under the protection of the bankruptcy court, debtors may 

“discharge” their debts, perhaps by paying a portion of each 

debt.
Federal Courts and What They Do

BANKRUPTCY JUDGE—a federal judge, appointed for a fourteenyear term, who has authority to hear matters that arise under 

the bankruptcy code.

BENCH TRIAL—a trial without a jury, in which the judge decides 

the facts.

BRIEF—a written statement submitted by the lawyer for each side 

in an appellate case that explains to the judges why they should 

decide the case in favor of that lawyer’s client.

CASE LAW—the law as laid down in the decisions of the courts; 

the law in cases that have been decided.

CHAMBERS—the offices of a judge.

CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE—the judge who has primary 

responsibility for the administration of the district court, but 

also decides cases. Chief judges are determined by seniority.

CLERK OF COURT—an officer appointed by the court to work 

with the chief judge and other judges in overseeing the court’s 

administration, especially to assist in managing the flow of 

cases through the court.

COMPLAINT—a written statement by the person starting a civil 

lawsuit that states the wrongs allegedly committed by the 

defendant.

CONTRACT—an agreement between two or more persons that 

creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing.

COUNSEL—a lawyer or a team of lawyers; the term is often used 

during a trial to refer to lawyers in a case.

COURT—an agency of government authorized to resolve legal 

disputes. Judges or lawyers sometimes use “court” to refer to 

the judge, as in “the court has read the pleadings.”

COURT REPORTER—a person who makes a word-for-word 

record of what is said in a court proceeding and produces a 

transcript of the proceeding if requested to do so.
Federal Courts and What They Do

COURTROOM DEPUTY or CLERK—a court employee who 

assists the judge by keeping track of witnesses, evidence, and 

other trial matters, and sometimes by scheduling cases.

CROSS- (and RE–CROSS-) EXAMINATION—questions lawyers 

ask witnesses called by their opponents.

DAMAGES—money that a defendant pays a plaintiff in a civil case 

that the plaintiff has won. Damages compensate the plaintiff 

for his or her injuries.

DEFENDANT—in a civil suit, the person complained against; in a 

criminal case, the person accused of the crime.

DIRECT (and RE-DIRECT) EXAMINATION—questions lawyers 

ask witnesses they have asked to come to court in order to bring 

out evidence for the fact finder (judge or jury).

DISCOVERY—lawyers’ examinations, before trial, of facts and 

documents that the opponents possess, to help the lawyers 

prepare for trial.

EN BANC—French for “in the bench” or “full bench.” The term 

refers to a session in which all of the judges on an appellate 

court (not just a panel) participate in the decision. The U.S. 

courts of appeals usually sit in panels of three judges, but for 

important cases may expand the bench to a larger number, and 

they are then said to be sitting en banc.

EVIDENCE—information in the form of testimony or documents 

that is presented to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to 

decide the case for one side or the other.

FELONY—a crime that carries a penalty of more than a year in 

prison.

GOVERNMENT—as it is used in federal criminal cases, 

“government” refers to the lawyers in the U.S. attorney’s office 

who are prosecuting the case.

GRAND JURY—a group of citizens who listen to evidence of 

criminal activity presented by the government in order to 

determine whether there is enough evidence to justify filing an 
Federal Courts and What They Do

indictment. Federal grand juries have from sixteen to twentythree persons and serve for about a year, sitting one or two days 

a week.

HEARSAY—evidence that is presented by a witness who did not 

see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from 

someone else. Hearsay evidence is usually not admissible as 

evidence in a trial.

IMPEACHMENT—(1) the process of charging someone with a 

crime (used mainly with respect to the constitutional process 

whereby the House of Representatives may impeach high 

officers of the government for trial in the Senate); (2) the 

process of calling the credibility of a witness into question, as 

in “impeaching the testimony of a witness.”

INDICTMENT (pronounced in-dite-ment)—the formal charge 

issued by a grand jury stating that there is enough evidence 

that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a 

trial; used primarily for felonies.

INFORMATION—a formal accusation by a government attorney 

that the defendant committed a misdemeanor.

INSTRUCTIONS—the judge’s explanation to the jury, before it 

begins deliberations, of the questions it must decide and the 

law governing the case.

JUDGE—a government official with authority to preside over and 

decide lawsuits brought to courts.

JUDICIAL REVIEW—this term typically refers to the authority of 

a court, in a case involving either a law passed by a legislature 

or an action by an executive branch officer or employee, to 

determine whether the law or action is inconsistent with a 

more fundamental law, namely the U.S. Constitution, and to 

declare the law or action invalid if it is inconsistent. Although 

judicial review is usually associated with the Supreme Court 

of the United States, it can be, and is, exercised by all courts. 

Judicial review sometimes means a form of appeal to the courts 

for review of an administrative body’s findings of fact or of 

law.
Federal Courts and What They Do

JURISDICTION—(1) the legal authority of a court to hear and 

decide a certain type of case; (2) the geographic area over which 

the court has authority to decide cases.

LAWSUIT—an action instituted by a party in a civil court alleging 

that another party failed to perform a legal duty.

LITIGANTS—see PARTIES.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE—in federal court, the U.S. magistrate 

judge assists the district judges in preparing cases for trial. 

Magistrate judges may also conduct some criminal trials if the 

defendant agrees to have the case heard by a magistrate judge 

instead of a district judge, and they may conduct civil trials 

when the parties so agree. 

MISDEMEANOR—usually an offense less severe than a felony; 

generally punishable by a fine only or by imprisonment of less 

than a year.

MISTRIAL—a trial that has been terminated because of some 

extraordinary event, a fundamental error prejudicial to the 

defendant, or a jury that is unable to reach a verdict.

OPINION—a judge’s written explanation of a decision in a case 

or some aspect of a case. An opinion of the court explains the 

decision of the court or of a majority of the judges. A dissenting 

opinion is an explanation by one or more judges if they believe 

the decision or opinion of the court is wrong. A concurring 

opinion agrees with the decision of the court but offers further 

comment or a different reason for the decision. A per curiam 

opinion is an opinion for the court not signed by an individual 

judge.

ORAL ARGUMENT—in appellate cases, an opportunity for the 

lawyers for each side to appear before the judges to summarize 

their positions and answer the judges’ questions.

PANEL—(1) in appellate cases, a group of three judges assigned 

to decide the case; (2) in the process of jury selection, the 

group of potential jurors from which the jury is chosen; (3) in 

criminal cases, a group of private lawyers whom the court has 


Federal Courts and What They Do

approved to be appointed to represent defendants unable to 

hire lawyers.

PARTIES—the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) to a lawsuit and their 

lawyers.

PETIT JURY (or TRIAL JURY)—a group of citizens who hear 

the evidence presented by both sides at trial and determine 

the facts in dispute. Federal criminal juries consist of twelve 

persons (sometimes with one or two alternate jurors in case 

one or more of the twelve cannot continue). Federal civil juries 

consist of six to twelve persons. “Petit” is French for “small,” 

thus distinguishing the trial jury from the larger grand jury.

PLAINTIFF—the person who files the complaint in a civil 

lawsuit.

PLEA—in a criminal case, the defendant’s declaration of “guilty” 

or “not guilty” of the charges.

PLEADINGS—in a civil case, the written statements of the parties 

stating their positions about the case.

PRECEDENT (pronounced press-a-dent)—a court decision in an 

earlier case with facts and legal issues similar to those in a case 

currently before a court.

PRESENTENCE REPORT—a probation officer’s report prepared 

from an investigation conducted at the request of the court after 

a defendant is convicted of a crime. It provides the judge with 

extensive information to determine an appropriate sentence 

for the defendant.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE—a meeting of the judge and lawyers 

in a case to decide which matters are in dispute and should 

be presented to the jury, to review evidence and witnesses to 

be presented, to set a timetable for the case, and sometimes to 

discuss settlement of the case.

PRO SE (pronounced pro say)—a Latin term meaning “on one’s 

own behalf”; in courts, it refers to persons who present their 

own cases without lawyers.


Federal Courts and What They Do

PROSECUTE—to charge a person or organization with a crime or 

a civil violation and seek to gain a criminal conviction or a civil 

judgment against that person or organization.

RECORD—a written account of all the acts and proceedings in a 

lawsuit.

REMAND—when an appellate court sends a case back to a lower 

court for further proceedings.

REVERSE—when an appellate court sets aside the decision of a 

lower court because of an error. A reversal is often followed by 

a remand.

SETTLE—in legal terminology, when the parties to a lawsuit agree 

to resolve their differences among themselves without having 

a trial.

SIDEBAR—a conference between the judge and lawyers held out 

of earshot of the jury and spectators.

STATUTE—a law passed by a legislature.

TERM—the time during which a court sits for the transaction of 

business, also referred to as a session.

TESTIMONY—evidence presented orally by witnesses during 

trials or before grand juries.

TRANSCRIPT—a written, word-for-word record of what was said, 

either in a proceeding, such as a trial, or during some other 

conversation, as in a “transcript” of a telephone conversation.

TRIAL JURY—see PETIT JURY.

UPHOLD—when an appellate court reviews but does not reverse 

a lower court’s decision.

U.S. ATTORNEY—a lawyer appointed by the President, in each 

judicial district, to prosecute cases for the federal government.

VERDICT—a petit jury’s decision.

VOIR DIRE (pronounced vwahr deer)—the process by which 

judges and lawyers select a petit jury from a panel of citizens 


Federal Courts and What They Do

eligible to serve. They do this by questioning the members of 

the panel. “Voir dire” is a legal phrase meaning “to speak the 

truth.”

WITNESS—a person called upon by either side in a lawsuit to give 

testimony before the court or jury.

WRIT OF CERTIORARI—an order by a court to a lower court 

requiring the lower court to produce the records of a particular 

case tried so that the reviewing court can inspect the proceedings 

and determine whether there have been any irregularities. The 

Supreme Court of the United States uses the writ of certiorari 

as a discretionary device to select the cases it will hear.
The Federal Judicial Center, at the suggestion of the Committee 

on the Judicial Branch of the Judicial Conference of the United 

States, prepared this pamphlet for federal courts to have available 

for use in public education and court visitor programs. The 

Center updated material in this pamphlet in 2006. It is printed 

and distributed to the courts by the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts. Members of the public can obtain copies from their 

federal court.

 The Federal Judicial Center was created by Congress in 1967 as 

the federal courts’ agency for research and continuing education. 

Its policies are determined by a Board chaired by the Chief 

Justice of the United States with a membership comprising seven 

federal judges and the director of the Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts. The judge members are selected by the Judicial 

Conference.