Great American Court Cases
Autor: BRAICIL | Publicado: 2011-11-10T17:16:00-08:00

     The most basic function of the American legal system is to maintain  peace by resolving disputes. Federal and state courts, tribunals, and  administrative bodies do this by applying laws to cases between specific  individuals or organizations. The primary sources of applicable law are federal and state  constitutions, statutes, and administrative regulations. Constitutions  establish the structure of government, define and limit its power, and  seek to protect individuals from unreasonable or unlawful exercises of  that power. Legislatures enact statutes—criminal laws, for example—that  govern a wide variety of conduct. Administrative bodies promulgate  regulations to govern specific areas of business, such as  telecommunications and securities. In theory, courts apply these existing laws rather than creating new  law. The legislatures and administrative bodies, however, cannot always  anticipate every possible set of circumstances, and the laws do not  clearly dictate a result in every case. Frequently, too, the law is  intentionally vague to give the courts flexibility to interpret it in  ways which serve general public policies rather than to accomplish  specific results. There are, however, constitutional limits on how vague  a law may be. In general, it must fairly apprise individuals of  behavior that it prohibits or compels. In practice, then, American courts often make law when they decide cases. Under the doctrine of stare decisis,  courts at the same or lower level in the judicial hierarchy must follow  the first court's interpretation of the law in subsequent cases with  similar facts. Higher courts in the judicial hierarchy may either accept  the lower court's interpretation or reverse it by interpreting the law  differently. Courts in other states may rely on the first court's  interpretation as persuasive authority concerning the application of  similar laws in their states. This tradition of binding and persuasive  authority is a by-product of the American judicial system's origins in  the common law system of England. Origins of the American Judicial System: State Judicial Systems When America declared its independence in 1776, the 13 original  colonies had largely informal judicial systems based loosely on the  English system of common law. Common law is the body of law that  developed in English courts on a case-by-case basis. Under the common  law, judges placed great reliance on decisions in prior cases with  similar facts. Although state courts today apply laws enacted by  legislatures and administrative bodies, they continue the common law  tradition of case-by-case interpretation of these laws and reliance on  prior judicial decisions. As the United States expanded southward and westward, it acquired  Mexican, Spanish, and French territories, which had legal systems based  on the European civil law tradition. Under that tradition, courts in  Europe applied detailed civil codes that the legislatures had designed  to resolve all potential disputes. Civil codes reflected the natural law  concept that there are unchanging, God-made laws that govern human  behavior. Unlike in common law systems, civil law courts were not  supposed to interpret the law beyond what was provided in the civil  codes—they simply resolved disputes by applying the appropriate portion  of the code. While the English common law tradition dominated the  formation of American state legal systems, remnants of the civil law  tradition exist even today, most notably in Louisiana, which based its  legal system on the civil law of France. Origins of the American Judicial System: Federal Judiciary The federal judiciary was born in 1789 upon adoption of the U.S.  Constitution, which vested the judicial power of the United States in  "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from  time to time ordain and establish." The Constitution created a judicial  system that contains elements of both the common and civil law  traditions. The latter is evident in one of the purposes expressed in  the Constitution's preamble—to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." The  Constitution, however, is subject to case-by-case interpretation by the  U.S. Supreme Court, which usually limits itself by the principle of stare decisis. Origins of the American Judicial System: Federalism The existence of separate federal and state judicial systems in the  United States is a hallmark of federalism, which means these systems  share authority to resolve legal disputes in their geographic  boundaries. Federal and state courts sometimes have concurrent  jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising from the same set of  circumstances. For instance, federal and state authorities both took  judicial action following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal  Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Federal and state courts occasionally  have exclusive jurisdiction over certain areas of the law. State  courts, for instance, typically have exclusive jurisdiction to handle  child custody disputes, while federal courts exclusively handle  bankruptcy cases. The U.S. Constitution determines whether state and  federal courts have concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction over a  particular issue. Structure and Operation of the Courts: Judicial Hierarchy American state court systems are hierarchical. Most states have trial  courts of general jurisdiction where the judges preside over all types  of cases, both civil and criminal. Most states also have special courts  of limited jurisdiction that hear only certain kinds of cases—domestic  relations and family court, juvenile court, and courts for the  administration of wills are typical examples. There also are state  courts of inferior jurisdiction, such as justices of the peace, small  claims court, and traffic court, that handle petty matters. Appeals from  all lower courts usually go first to an intermediate appellate court,  often called the court of appeals, and then to the state's highest  court, often called the supreme court. When a case involves application  of the U.S. Constitution or federal law, the parties sometimes may  appeal from the state's highest court to the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal judiciary is similarly hierarchical. Federal district  courts handle trials in civil and criminal cases, and appeals from some  federal administrative agencies. The federal judiciary also has special  courts of limited jurisdiction, such as the Court of Federal Claims, the  Court of International Trade, and the Tax Court. Appeals from federal  district courts go to one of 11 numbered circuit courts of appeals  covering different geographical regions, or to the District of Columbia  Court of Appeals. Appeals from the Court of Federal Claims and the Court  of International Trade go to the Federal Court of Appeals. Parties may  appeal a case from the appellate courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Structure and Operation of the Courts: Criminal and Civil Procedure The progress of a case through the court system is governed by rules  of procedure. There are separate rules of civil and criminal procedure  because criminal cases require special constitutional safeguards for the  accused. The following illustration explains the procedure in a civil  case, which generally is a dispute between private individuals. Some of  the notable differences between civil and criminal procedures are noted  in this discussion. Rules of civil procedure define and limit the roles of the various  persons in a case. The party who brings a case is called the plaintiff,  and the person being sued is the defendant. (In criminal cases there is a  prosecutor instead of a plaintiff.) As the American legal system is  adversarial, the parties are represented by lawyers who must zealously  protect their clients' interests. A jury typically hears the evidence  and determines the outcome under the substantive law as instructed by  the judge. The judge acts as a referee to enforce the rules and explain  the applicable law. While the federal and state courts each have their own rules of civil  procedure, the federal process is fairly representative. A federal case  begins when a plaintiff files a complaint and summons in a federal  district court. The complaint explains the nature of the plaintiff's  claim against the defendant. The summons notifies the defendant to  appear and to answer the complaint by either admitting or denying the  plaintiff's allegations. If the defendant fails to appear and answer,  the court may enter a default judgment against the defendant and order  the relief sought by the plaintiff. If the defendant appears, he  typically files an answer that denies the plaintiff's allegations. The  plaintiff's complaint, the defendant's answer, and any reply by the  plaintiff are called the pleadings. The defendant next may file a motion to dismiss, which argues that  even if the plaintiff proves everything in his pleadings, the law does  not provide any relief. If the judge grants this motion, she dismisses  the case. If not, the parties proceed to the discovery phase. The purpose of discovery is to help the parties identify and narrow  the issues for trial, and to require the parties to disclose all of  their evidence. The parties begin discovery by making mandatory  disclosures containing basic information, such as the identity of  persons and documents with evidence related to the pleadings. The  parties then answer interrogatories and take depositions.  Interrogatories are written questions that a party must answer in  writing under an oath that acknowledges a penalty for perjury.  Depositions are oral, transcribed proceedings by which a prospective  witness, who also is under oath, answers verbal questions posed by the  lawyers. Interrogatory answers and deposition transcripts may be used at  trial as evidence or to impeach a witness's testimony if she  contradicts what she said during discovery. After discovery, the defendant may make a motion for summary  judgment, which argues that even with everything that discovery has  revealed, the plaintiff is unable to prove a violation of law warranting  relief. If the judge grants this motion, she dismisses the case.  Otherwise the case proceeds to trial. The trial begins when the judge and parties pick a jury. (In civil  cases for which there was no right to a jury trial upon adoption of the  U.S. Constitution, or when the parties do not want a jury trial, the  parties have a bench trial before a judge without a jury.) In some cases  a grand jury, consisting usually of 23 members, is called to determine  whether grounds exist for a criminal proceeding to be initiated by the  state. To pick the jury, the judge or lawyers pose questions to  prospective jurors. After hearing the answers, the parties may dismiss a  set number of prospective jurors for any reason, although they may not  discriminate unlawfully. The parties further may dismiss an unlimited  number of jurors for good cause, such as bias in the prospective juror's  responses. Once they have selected 12 jurors, the lawyers present opening  statements, which give the jury a road-map of what the evidence will  prove. The plaintiff then presents his case by the testimony of  witnesses and the admission of documents into the record of evidence.  The presentation is governed by rules of evidence, which the judge  enforces to determine what the jury can and cannot hear. The rules of  evidence are supposed to give the jury only the most reliable evidence.  The defendant is allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses to  challenge their accuracy, truthfulness, and bias. The defendant presents  his evidence after the plaintiff, who then may cross-examine the  defendant's witnesses. At the close of the evidence, each party may ask the judge to enter  judgment in his favor on the ground that a reasonable jury could only  reach one verdict under the evidence presented. If the judge denies this  motion, she instructs the jury about the applicable substantive law,  the lawyers make closing arguments to explain the result their clients  seek, and the jury retires to deliberate and reach a verdict. After the  jury (or the judge in a bench trial) delivers its verdict, each party  may ask the judge to reverse the verdict or order a new trial based upon  errors the judge made applying the rules of procedure, rules of  evidence, or substantive law. If these motions are denied, the parties  may file a notice of appeal to the proper circuit court of appeals.  Notably, if a person is found not guilty in a criminal proceeding that  is not declared a mistrial, that person cannot be tried again for the  same crime. This concept of double jeopardy has its origin in the Fifth  Amendment, which prevents people from being placed at risk of conviction  more than once for a single offense. Cases in the courts of appeals are heard by a panel of three judges.  The parties file briefs that explain the errors they think the trial  judge made under the rules of procedure, rules of evidence, or  substantive law. The court of appeals does not hear the evidence anew,  but relies on the record—the trial testimony and documents entered into  evidence before the district court. The court also might hear oral  argument, during which the parties' lawyers may respond to questions  posed by the judges on the panel. The judges then study the record,  briefs, and oral argument, discuss the case among themselves, vote on  the result, and issue a decision based on the majority vote. Dissatisfied parties may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is  composed of nine justices. The procedure is similar to that in the  courts of appeal, with one major exception: a party first must file a  petition for a writ of certiorari to convince the Supreme Court  that the case is important enough to warrant consideration. The Supreme  Court grants the writ—by a vote of four or more justices—for only  approximately five percent of the thousands of petitions it receives  each year. These lucky few file briefs and engage in oral argument as  they did before the court of appeals. After the justices vote, one of  the justices voting in the majority writes an opinion explaining the  Court's decision. Dissatisfied parties have no further avenue of appeal  from this court of last resort. Structure and Operation of the Courts: Alternative Dispute Resolution The procedure for pursuing a case, especially a civil case, from  trial through appeal is time-consuming. It can take one or more years to  get a verdict in the trial court, and five or more years for an appeal  to the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. The legal fees and other  costs can amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. The  vast majority of civil cases thus settle before going to trial, which  means the parties resolve their dispute by agreement. Most criminal  cases also settle, a process called plea-bargaining. Efforts to reduce costs in civil cases have popularized an area of  legal procedure called alternative dispute resolution, or ADR.  Arbitration, the best known form of ADR, is an informal, abbreviated  trial where one or more neutral arbitrators hears and decides the case  like a judge and jury. Conciliation, a less common form of ADR, involves  submission of the dispute to a neutral third party for her  investigation and recommendation. With mediation the parties try to  negotiate a resolution with the assistance and guidance of a neutral  mediator.   Today many contracts include a clause that requires parties to use  ADR to resolve their disagreements. Whether or not they have a contract,  many parties voluntarily pursue ADR before going to court. State courts  increasingly require parties in certain types of cases to try  arbitration or mediation before proceeding to trial. The American  Arbitration Association and other organizations support these efforts by  designing ADR systems and procedures. Types of Law In the United States, where most courts hear cases concerning all areas of law, categorizing the laws is largely arbitrary. In An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States,  Professor E. Allan Farnsworth suggested a useful distinction between  public and private law. Public law generally concerns disputes between  the government and individuals. Private law concerns disputes between  private individuals. Types of Law: Public Law Public law, as described by Professor Farnsworth, includes  constitutional, criminal, trade regulation, labor, and tax law.  Constitutional law is embodied in the decisions of the U.S. Supreme  Court that interpret the federal Constitution. Many of these cases  concern whether conduct by the legislative or executive branches of the  federal government violate constitutional definitions or limitations on  their powers. Under the "political question" doctrine, however, the  Supreme Court will decline to decide such a case if the Constitution  reserves the issue for the legislative or executive branch without  judicial interference. A large majority of constitutional law cases concern the protection  of individual rights from unlawful federal conduct. The Bill of Rights,  which comprises the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is the  primary source of these rights. For example, the First Amendment  protects the freedom of speech, while the Fourth Amendment protects the  right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Constitution  also protects individual rights from unlawful state conduct. The most  important source of this protection is the Fourteenth Amendment, which  contains the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. By interpretation  of these clauses, the U.S. Supreme Court has applied the rights and  protections found in the Bill of Rights to state conduct. Criminal law mostly appears in state penal codes. These codes, while  largely based on the common law of England, reflect an effort to arrive  at uniform, reliable definitions of crimes. The codes define everything  from felonies, such as murder and rape, to misdemeanors and petty  offenses. There also are federal sources of criminal law, most notably  relating to interstate conduct, such as drug trafficking and fraudulent  use of the mails. Another important source of federal criminal law is  the statute that protects civil rights, such as the right to be free  from discrimination on the basis of race, color, or creed. Criminal law  cases also can involve issues of constitutional law, such as the rights  of the accused to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney. Trade regulation includes antitrust law, which seeks to prevent  monopolies and other restraints of trade under America's system of free  enterprise. It also includes laws designed to prevent unfair competition  among businesses. Labor law protects the well-being of employees and  the rights and duties of labor unions. Tax law primarily concerns the  federal income tax. Types of Law: Private Law Private law, often referred to as civil law, includes tort, contract,  family, commercial, and property law. States are the primary source of  private law. Tort law is a system of providing compensation between  individuals for private wrongs, such as battery and defamation. The  enforcement of promises or obligations between individuals is the  subject of contract law. Family law deals with the relationships between  husband and wife or parent and child: marriage and divorce; spousal  abuse and support; and child custody, abuse, support, and adoption.  Commercial law, derived primarily from the Uniform Commercial Code,  governs the sale and lease of goods. Property law governs transactions  in real estate. The Appointment of Judges The process for appointing state judges varies from state to state.  Most state trial judges are elected by popular vote or by the state  legislature. The supreme court judges in most states are appointed for a  fixed term by the governor, and then periodically stand unopposed for  reelection based on their records. In some states the judges of the  highest court are elected by popular vote. State judges usually serve  for a fixed term of years or for life, and can be removed only for gross  misconduct by formal proceedings. Federal judges are appointed by the president with the advice and  consent of the Senate. This process typically results in the appointment  of judges who are members of the president's political party. If the  Senate judiciary committee is controlled by the president's opposition  party, the confirmation process can be hotly contested. Federal judges  are appointed for life, and can be removed only by impeachment and  conviction by Congress. The Role of Judges State and federal judges perform various important roles in the  American legal system. Trial judges referee cases under the rules of  procedure and evidence. The trial judge also instructs the jury  concerning the substantive law that is applicable to the case. In bench  trials, the judge determines the facts, law, and result without a jury.  The role of appellate judges is to review the record of evidence before  the trial court, decide the applicable substantive law, and either  affirm or reverse the result below. In doing so, the appellate judge may  announce principles of law for application by trial judges in future  cases. Limitations on Judicial Power In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court said "[i]t is  emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say  what the law is." Judicial power, however, is not unlimited. The U.S.  Constitution is the primary source for limitations on federal judicial  power. The Constitution constrains federal courts to hear only "cases  and controversies," which means actual cases rather than hypothetical  situations or stale disputes. Under the political question doctrine,  federal courts will not address issues reserved to the legislative or  executive branches of the federal government. Congressional authority  under the Constitution also limits judicial power. Congress may impeach  and convict federal judges for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes  and Misdemeanors." If Congress is dissatisfied with a court's  interpretation of a statute, it may pass legislation to correct the  interpretation, as long as it acts within the constitutional limitations  on its own power. Similarly, state judicial power is restricted by state constitutions,  the process for selection and removal of state judges, and the ultimate  supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over both state and federal statutes  and case law.   Bibliography and Further Reading Calvi, James V., and Susan Coleman. American Law and Legal Systems, 3d ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1997. Farnsworth, E. Allan. An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States, 3d ed. New York: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1996. Fowler, Michael Ross. With Justice for All? The Nature of the American Legal System. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998. Van Dervort, Thomas R. Equal Justice Under the Law. Minneapolis/Saint Paul: West Publishing Company, 1994.