Category: Court

Introduction

It is not only necessary to have the necessary knowledge about principles and judgments of Constitutional Law by the Supreme Court, but it is also important to know how the Court has arrived at such decisions, or in other words, the rationale and justification for such verdicts by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Case Study 1

Congress members have certain duties and obligations towards the State and also to its citizens. However, they also have rights to privacy, especially in areas of sexual preferences and sexual conduct. (Lawrence v.Texas ) But what the member stands accused of in this particular case is of sexual misconduct, compounded by payment of money to keep the staff member and her family quiet about their affair.

“Sen. Robert W. Packwood, Oregon Republican, resigned in 1995 after the Senate Select Committee on Ethics recommended that he be expelled for sexual misconduct and abuse of power.” (In Congress’ 213- year history, expulsion ‘exceedingly rare’, 1). Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that “Each House may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.” (Power and Duties of the Houses).

Coming to the case of Senator Robert W. Packard, it is evidenced that several of his female targets had brought about specific complaints against him, as a result of which he was constrained to resign his post. However, in this case, no such complaints have been brought against the Congress member in question. Nevertheless, it could be argued, whether absence of specific complaints could be construed as a validation of his actions. Most certainly, it cannot be so.

But the fact that needs to be considered in this case is the rights of confidentiality and privacy in their personal lives that citizens, especially legislators enjoy, and the fact that though ethically wrong, his actions have not caused any harm to anybody, except to his own reputation. Thus, it would be unconstitutional on the part of the other members to unseat him, if he has been seated through the due process of law. Any action taken, or proposed to be taken, unilaterally against a member without specific complaint and “due process of law”, could be seen as a violation of his rights guaranteed under 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution. (U.S Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment).

Thus, it is necessary in this case that specific charge be levied against the Congress member, and he be given every opportunity, including legal counsel to take up his case. The process of law needs to be upheld while legally proceeding and prosecuting the member for alleged sexual misconduct, etc. Prima facie, it could be evidenced that abuse of power in terms of giving hush money could constitute a more valid reason for enforcing legal action and possible removal from office of this member, since he has indulged in illegal transactions with another member.

Case Study 2

In this case, the executive military powers of the President of the US, as Commander of the armed forces need to be considered. The fact that remains is, whether he has transgressed executive powers conferred upon him as President, by indulging in certain actions that may, prima facie, be seen as unconstitutional or even extra-constitutional. The major area that needs attention is:

1. Declaring blockade of another country and seizing all ships passing through these waters.
2. Subjecting civilians to trials in military tribunals.
3. Whether Acts of the president are constitutional?
4. What are the powers that back him in his actions?
5. Role of Congress – whether it could start impeachment proceedings.
6. Could individuals or interest groups intervene and in what way?

It could be said that even during times of war, the need for taking recourse to legislative machinery does arise, except when there is a breakdown in the administration and the legal machinery is thrown out of gear.

Even under such circumstances, it is for Congress to decide the best course of action to be taken and President needs to take cognizance of the decisions of Congress, except in the case of national emergency, under which, by exercise of his powers, he is allowed to take executive military decisions, that need to be ratified by Congress at a later time.

“Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.” (U.S Constitution: Article II).

In this case it is quite obvious that although US is at war, there is no national emergency. The President needs to act according to the US Constitution, and his decision to seize ships in waters and arrest nationals, whether local or foreign, could be seen as extra-constitutional acts for which he is himself responsible. Again, he has not consulted Congress, or sought its approval in these matters. However, during time of war, the president is given executive power under Constitution.

Article 10 specifies that the power of the President, as the Commander of the Armed Forces, allows him to use “militia”, whenever it is necessary to quell “rebellion”, or circumstances under which legal machinery cannot be enforced. (U.S. Code Collection). In this case, except for war with Canada, there has not been a breakdown of administrative or legislative machinery in the country. Moreover, the President has not felt it necessary to seek consent of Congress, before starting blockade against the enemy or seizing ships in waters. President Roosevelt has taken recourse to unconsented military action, but that was during the Second World War, and when there were serious threats to the security and suzerainty of the country, including the threat of Nazi invasion into the country. It is evident that the President, at his own instance ‘cannot declare war or commence hostilities.’ (Supreme Court Collection).

It is for Congress to decide the commencement or cessation of hostility, or war.

However, it could be said that the President’s order to subject civilians to military tribunals is extra-constitutional and not in line with accepted covenants of the Geneva Conventions 1948. However, it is seen that the American Constitution does empower the President to determine whether a state of armed conflict exists against the enemy, and this has been reinforced in the” Prizes Cases.” (Hamdan, Rumsfeld, et al).

The powers vested with the President under the Constitution permit him to take military action whenever he is of the considered opinion that the security and integrity of the nation are compromised by internal or external threats. In this case, although a state of war has been declared, it is better that he seeks consent of Congress before taking strong policy decision, especially in matters of treatment of prisoners of war, enforcing blockades and other activities, although, as commander of the armed forces, he has designated powers to use military forces during the course of war.

If there are concrete evidences to prove that the President has acted unconstitutionally or even extra-constitutionally, it is within the powers of Congress to collectively take action for his removal, or impeachment. As President, he is accountable to Congress and the American people for all his deeds as President, and it is possible that individuals or groups may question the rationale and justification of his actions through legal channels.

Works Cited

Hamdan, Salim Ahmed., Rumsfeld, Donald H., et al. In the Supreme Court of the United States.. 2009. Web.

“In Congress’ 213- year history, expulsion ‘exceedingly rare’”. The Washington Times. 2002. Web.

Power and Duties of the Houses. U.S. Supreme Court Center. 2005. Web.

Supreme Court Collection: Grier, J., Opinion of the Court: Supreme Court of the United States. Cornell University Law School. 2009. Web.

U.S Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1. Rights Guaranteed: Due Process of Law. Find Law for Legal Professional. 2009. Web.

U.S Constitution: Article II: Martial Law and Constitutional Limitations. Find Law for Legal Professional. 2009. Web.

U.S. Code Collection: § 332. Use of Militia and armed Forces to Enforce Federal Authority. Cornell University Law School. 2009. Web.

Introduction

Oral arguments and briefs have a great influence on jurists’ decisions in the courts. In his book, Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court, Timothy Johnson notes that judges consider a number of issues such as oral arguments, political considerations, and external factors, which are not part of the case records prior to making an ultimate decision in a particular case. Conventionally, jurists do not decide on how to decree on a particular case before listening to it.

The intent of this paper is to affirm that oral arguments affect how judges make decisions in courts and in this particular instance, in the Supreme Court. The paper begins by a summary of a reading Timothy Johnson’s book, Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court.

Summary of the oral arguments and decision-making on the US Supreme Court

Johnson argues that advocates should not use oral argument as a tool for influencing judges, but rather for accomplishing the goals that the judges have set.

He further asserts that conscious of the existing external factors that might influence the process of decision-making and the need for creating strong internal coalitions, judges capitalize on the arguments to get facts, form legal, and procedure matters for conference deliberation, and finally use them to develop their written judgments (Johnson 28). Johnson presents a properly researched writing that helps students comprehend how strategic decision-making is achieved in the Supreme Court.

Johnson notes that litigation involves the presentation of legal problems in two opposing sides with the exemption of the amicus briefs, with the two opposing sides presenting their arguments on biased grounds (26). Conscious of the bias-based arguments, judges utilize oral argument as a tool for determining issues, which are of greatest importance irrespective of whether they were tabled by advocates.

How oral arguments affect decision-making in the Supreme Court

In his book, Johnson refers to a number of cases tackled in the 1970-80s and uses them to compare the briefs presented by the parties and the questions that developed during the oral argument session. The aim of the latter is to determine if the court simply requests the parties to explicate the issues that they wrote in their briefs or they go past the issues outlined in the briefs and seek clarification on new developments.

According to Johnson, most issues raised by judges, close to 80%, are new concerns that were not tackled by the parties and amicus (98). Furthermore, in instances where the jurists raise issues in relation to the briefs, they mainly seek to understand how particular issues in the briefs affect public policy. In essence, judges are concerned with how the litigants’ briefs influence external factors, for instance as the Congress to help them determine policy options that should adopt in coming to a particular conclusion.

Indeed, oral argument plays a critical, but distinct role for advocates and judges. When an advocate presents his or her oral argument, he or she is able to clarify facts related to the cases that helps the judges when examining what the case actually entails (Johnson 47). By simply tabling the briefs, they are never assured if the court heard their plea, as they are not certain if the judges read the briefs.

Even the responses from the judges do not erase the doubts as the judges’ legal clerks normally prepare the responses. Oral argument is an important communication aspect to the court as it assures the litigants that they have communicated and the genuine people have heard their cases. It affirms the significance of face-to-face communication. The nature of communication adopted by a lawyer during the oral submission is of great essence.

Moreover, oral arguments help judges to get the main points because lawyers have to be precise. It compels advocates to concentrate on issues, which they consider as important. Since lawyers often have a fixed time, possibly one or two hours, to present their oral argument, the litigant is thus compelled to highlight the important issues. This use of language is absent in briefs where lawyers have the liberty to respond to the laws and facts that they find relevant for their case.

Moreover, lawyers will be in search of fresh perspectives in relation to the case. As a result, jurists are able to seek clarification on some of the questions that emerged from the briefs. Unlike briefs, justices are in a position to know the highlights of the case as they can easily question the litigant to explain to the court what he or she considers as collateral issues, which should be put into consideration during their judgment.

Subsequently, if an advocate fails to clarify some of the issues he or she raised in the brief, then he or she cannot blame the court if it makes a little drift from the issues when making its judgment. In essence, the oral argument has the power to shape the outcome the judges intend to make. The justices can use it to get backing for their verdicts and ultimate results.

Johnson notes that most issues that justices raise during an oral argument presentation often appear in their written opinions (73). For instance, in the case of Roe v Wade, a question that emerged during the oral argument later developed to a Court’s theory (Johnson 75). In essence, oral arguments give judges an instrument for substantiating the reasons why they particular decisions.

The communication amongst judges is also a vibrant occurrence during oral arguments. This aspect helps judges in raising matters that probably a litigant had shied from presenting. Furthermore, raising such questions helps judges to tackle some issues that would complicate the decision-making process if not handled early enough and in the open.

Indeed, the time that justices get to have a collegial deliberation in the Supreme Court is normally inadequate, and thus they may utilize a portion of the oral argument session to consult each other on the possible outcome of a case (Johnson 94).

Nonetheless, the major role of oral argument is to endow justices with adequate and pertinent information. Justices are coupled with reservations that can only be altered by relevant information and laws. From this approach, litigants present oral arguments to give justices information that can shape how they decide on their client’s case.

In essence, the aim of advocates is to table issues and link them to the current law coupled with how they are going to affect the public policies. Judges rely on the oral submissions made by lawyers to assist them in advancing their goals. A skilled oral advocate can largely influence the outcome of a given case. For instance, in the case of Jensen v Quaring (1985), Justice Blackmun confessed that the oral arguments made by the respondents simplified his decision-making process.

Considering the aforementioned issues, what type of information that justices seek after that eventually influences their position in a particular case? At times, justices simply need to have a clear-cut understanding of the issues presented by litigants. Jurists raise questions on certain issues not only to get facts, but also to determine the type of approach that they should adopt.

Lawyers are thus compelled to think beyond the facts and law applicable in a certain case and they are advised to incorporate the social and political effects of the case in their arguments because judges will consider social and political impact of their ruling with respect to the case. Judges try to associate every point raised by advocates to other scenarios in a bid to construct the actual outcome of the arguments. Essentially, they want advocates to guide them towards a particular path.

Nevertheless, judges do not communicate their strategies directly to litigants. One can tell approach adopted by the courts by examining the questions that justices raise during oral arguments. Recent studies indicate that one can simply predict the outcome of a case by tallying the amount of questions directed to a given party. Apparently, a lawyer that receives a certain question ends up losing his or her case (Johnson, 91).

Moreover, the prevailing tone during the oral argument can affect the ultimate decision made by judges. The tone gives a glimpse of the speaker’s ambitions, intentions, and aspirations. Presumably, when judges adopt a harsh tone towards a given lawyer, then he or she is likely to lose the case Jonathan, (28).

Johnson comes up with a number of models that Supreme Court judges apply when making decisions with respect to oral arguments. Judges are affected by the quality of information presented by a litigant. In that, judges are likely to vote for the attorney who offers the best oral argument. In this regard, it can be noted that judges may be influenced by a lawyers experience and skills in oral arguments. For instance, judges are likely to be convinced by a Solicitor General that an advocate who has a one year in experience.

Another argument is that policy preference plays a role in how judges make decisions after an oral argument. In that, judges are likely to support attorneys whose presentations are close to their policy preferences. Nonetheless, the law restricts how judges are influenced by their ideological beliefs.

To explain the latter, Johnson (94) develops the conditional effect of oral advocacy theory where he argues that the proximity of the ideological position of judge in comparison to an attorney is likely to be influenced by the credibility of an attorney’s oral argument. Moreover, the oral argument plays a substantial role in complex cases. Using the conditional effect of information need theory, Johnson (102) asserts that the influence of oral arguments on judges in dependant on the complexity of a particular case.

Conclusion

The importance and impact of oral argument on the Supreme Court‘s decisions can never be ignored. Not every case is decided on oral arguments; however, when justices begin requesting advocates to expound certain issues during oral arguments, then its significance cannot be overlooked.

Oral arguments influence all parties in the Supreme Court and the eventual decision made by judges. By focusing on the important issues, it aids judges in deciding on the strategy that they will adopt in their judgment. On the other hand, justices ask the lingering questions that might have developed from the briefs and get clarification on the important issues of the case.

Moreover, it gives judges an opportunity to have collegial consultations on issues that would have possibly made it difficult to determine a case. The impact of oral argument on the Supreme Court cases can thus never be underrated, as it influences the decisions made by judges despite the presence of briefs.

Works Cited

Johnson, Timothy. Oral arguments and decision-making on the United States Supreme Court, New York: State University of New York Press, 2011. Print.

Introduction

The concept of separation of powers aims at ensuring that branches of government with different tasks and mandates perform their duties independently without interference according to their areas of specialization. The main reason for such specialization is to limit the power that each branch of government has in a bid to prevent the creation of moral hazard.

Additionally, such separation prevents one branch of government from interfering with another’s operations and performance of duties. However, it is essential to ensure that the branches of government operate within their mandate without overstepping their power. Since the three bodies constitute the highest offices in government, they should keep each other in check.

Separation of power has often resulted in controversy as the legislature and the judiciary’s powers sometimes overlap due to constitutional and statutory interpretations.

The paper discusses some of the ways in which the theory of textualism makes interpretation easier, simplifies challenges, and how the theory compares to the theories of originalism and common law use of the principle of precedence in terms of objectivity and ease of application. The paper explores the three theories according to sentiments by the U.S Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia in his work, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.

Textualism: Antonin Scalia

Antonin Scalia is a Judge of the Supreme Court – a position that he has held for the past twenty years. Scalia’s extensive experience in the judicial system has made his opinion on statutory and constitutional interpretation noteworthy, especially when conducting analyses on other theoretical approaches to the same. In his book, A Matter of Interpretation, Scalia clearly expresses his support and preference for the textualist approach of interpretation.

According to Scalia (1998), the most suitable interpretation of the constitution and other statutes is one where “the text is the law…and it is the text that must be observed” (p. 11), as it is simple, complies with constitutionality, and prevents the inclusion of personal prejudices during the interpretation process.

In essence, textualism proposes a method of interpretation of statutes according to the meaning of the actual text and language in a statute. Scalia (1998) states that the ordinary meaning of a text governs the interpretation and that judges should not go outside the text to seek a meaning through the application of factors such as the intention of the law. In his opinion, textuality provides a sense of simplicity when interpreting legislation that most other methods lack (p.14).

Additionally, such simplicity eases the interpretation process and shortens the amount of time that a court spends contemplating on a decision, without compromising any of the statutory or constitutional provisions (Scalia, 1998, p.15). Another advantage that Scalia mentions in his text is the view that the adoption of textualism in interpretation creates uniformity in interpretation that other methods lack.

Scalia (1998) explains this point by positing that the uniform application of statutes and constitutional provisions creates a possibility for uniformity in interpretation resulting in easy application of the law if judges choose to use textualism as opposed to any other method of interpretation (p.20).

In Scalia’s view, the use of factors such as intention and legislative history results in subjective decisions and opens doors for personal prejudices, which becomes problematic because judges might use such criteria to create their version of what they think the law, should be instead of what it is.

He expressly states, “My view that the objective indications of the words, rather than the intent of the legislature, is what constitutes the law leads me, of course, to the conclusion that the legislative history should not be used as an authoritative indication of a statute’s meaning” (Scalia, 1998, p. 29).

Although Scalia’s arguments make a lot of sense, some scholars, especially in the law profession, argue that the theory has limitations like any other theories, and thus it does not qualify as the easiest theory to use in terms of flexibility and adaptability to changes in societal values. Some of the prominent theories that provide a comparison in application to textualism include the original intention theory and use of precedence.

Original intent (originalism)

The original intent theory of statutory and constitutional interpretation suggests that in order for judges to obtain the correct interpretation, they must consider the intention of the legislature at the time of the statute’s inception and then apply such findings to cases at present.

Proponents of this theory justify its formulation by stating that it aims at ensuring that judges understand the meaning of the text in statutes clearly before application (O’Brien, 2012, p.102). In this case, the intention of lawmakers suffices over the literal meaning of the text. Proponents of originalism argue that the vague nature of the constitution and statutes makes a literal reading of text problematic.

However, consideration of the intent of the legislature using the test of a reasonable man eliminates such limitation and results in ease of application. The proponents also state that the meaning of the law does not change even as society changes, thus safeguarding the core societal values it aims to protect. These arguments make sense in the light of globalization and the adoption of selective cultures, both of which create the potential risk of loss of identity in any society (Scalia, 1998, p.186).

Although the application of the theory sounds simple, certain difficulties exist in terms of uniformity of interpretation. Different people interpret common situations differently. For instance, some people choose to focus on the positive side of any situation, while others bear an inclination to notice the negative. In the same way, some scholars, including Scalia, point out that it is nearly impossible for all judges to interpret the text in statutes the same way.

The element of ambiguity is often the source of such lack of synchronicity. Secondly, reference to the original intent prevents the application of the statute in later cases whose facts comply with the application of the literal text meaning, but fails in terms of application according to the intent.

One of the issues that have so far proven this point is the issue of homosexuality. Most legislative bodies in federal governments during the 1980s outlawed homosexuality in express terms. In current years, activism in support of gay rights has ignited the need to revisit the statutes. However, consideration of the original intent has so far been one of the reasons why incorporation of such rights into law has been nearly impossible.

According to Scalia (1998, p.190), the basis for original intent is erroneous, thus creating possible grounds for nullification of the theory with regard to the interpretation process. Scalia (1998, p.182) cautions that with more than five hundred members of the legislature, it is nearly impossible to ascertain the collective intention of all the members when establishing original intent in any statute.

Additionally, the application of original intent requires one to revisit legislator history, which creates a lack of appropriate respect for the wording of the text (Scalia, 1998, p.179). Comparison of the theory to textualism indicates the latter to be simpler in application. However, it is important to note that both theories possess elements that overlap with such ease of application, thus making them appear relative albeit only with regard to ease of application.

Common law use of Precedence

The principle of precedence essentially suggests that in order to establish the applicability of statutes and the constitution to cases, a judge or lawyer has to consider previous judicial decisions on matters exhibiting similarities in terms of facts. Ordinarily, the principle aims at creating a sense of uniformity and consistency in decision making that eases the task of judges and lawyers when evaluating cases.

However, the uniqueness of some facts in specific cases makes adherence with such uniformity problematic. Usually, in instances where the points in a particular case reveal elements absent in past cases providing precedence, a judge has to make a fresh decision for purposes of utilization as precedence in future cases (O’Brien, 2012, p. 309).

The concept adheres by several rules, one of which is that the facts in the current case have to exhibit striking similarities with the applicable case law. Secondly, the hierarchy of courts dictates the effect that the precedent has on the current case. Usually, the high court, court of appeal, and the Supreme Court create decisions that are binding in nature while those of lower courts often have a suggestive appeal as opposed to an authoritative one (Scalia, 1998, p.190).

Thirdly, case law, which is the primary source of law concerning this principle, serves to fill gaps regarding certain matters for which statutes provide no satisfactory means of resolution. Ideally, the application of precedent cases in decision-making eliminates the need to deal with issues of ambiguity and vagueness (O’Brien, 2012, p. 421). The use of past cases with similar facts makes it easy for lawmakers to establish a decision. An analysis of these facts reveals this method of interpretation to be comfortable and more practical than originalism.

However, this theory is not without its challenges. One of the most controversial issues surrounding the theory’s application is its tendency to overlap with the legislative mandate regarding the formulation and enactment of laws in statutes. Scalia (1998, p.178) argues that the principle creates a threshold through which the judiciary crosses into the territory of the legislature, thus breaching the concept of separation of powers.

He notes that the legislature reserves all rights to formulate laws while the judiciary’s task is to enact these laws. However, by creating case law and using it as a basis for decision-making, the judiciary turns itself into a law-making body, which is contrary to its purpose (Scalia, 1998, p.189). In his book, Scalia (1998, p.192) argues that this mistake comes from educational institutions that teach students how to derive law from past cases.

By doing so, law professors create a breed of lawyers and judges that considers case laws more as compared to what it does to actual law in statutes and the constitution. He explains that even though the principle still gives regard to statutory law, the importance that it accords such law is not as high as it should be.

In his opinion, the application of case law as the basis for decisions creates a scenario where historical legislation overshadows current legislation and diminishes the importance of the legislature (Scalia, 1998, p.194). Therefore, the principle in Scalia’s view is flawed and it fades in comparison to his textualism principle.

Conclusion

Theoretically, using the principle of textualism as a method of constitutional and statutory interpretation is easier than applying theories such as precedence and originalism as the application of the law does not require any interpretation other than the literal meaning of the text. However, the practical aspect of such application reveals that the principle is riddled with limitations like any other theory.

References

O’Brien, D. (2012). Judges on Judging: Views from the Bench (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Scalia, A. (1998). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Introduction

The case of Marbury v Madison 5 U.S 137 (1830) is one of the most notable cases in the United States. Over the years, scholars have presented varying views concerning the validity of judicial review as one of the roles of the Supreme Court and its effect on separation of powers between the judiciary and congress.

Justice Robert H. Jackson underscores the dilemma that the judicial review process creates by granting the judiciary power to nullify laws passed by the representative body of the government thus limiting the power of the majority to govern the country. On the other hand, judicial review provides an avenue through which the judiciary provides checks and balances for the legislature, thus ensuring adherence of laws to the constitution.

Constitution makers in the United States choose the limited majority rule option as their preferred ideology. This paper explores arguments by Lawrence Baum and Timothy Johnson on the validity of this choice. The authors discuss issues regarding the decision making process in the Supreme Court and its effects on legislative policies.

In my opinion, limited majority rule benefits all branches of government as well as the people that the institutions serve. It also ensures that members of congress enact policies that address the needs of the American society as opposed to personal needs of the lawmakers, thus making it the better option of the two choices as explained in this paper.

Arguments in support of limited majority rule

Lawrence Baum in his book, The supreme Court, explains that the one of the main issues generating controversy with regarding the role of the Supreme Court is the fact that the role grants the court the ability to nullify laws made by congress. In his defense of the implementation of judicial review, he draws attention to a distinction between the will of the majority in reference to the society and the will of the majority in reference to the members of the legislature.

He states that most of the scholars who present opinions against judicial review often overlook the difference between the two concepts of the term majority in their analysis of situations.

In his opinion, statutes that fail to comply with the constitutional provisions often represent the will of the majority in terms of members of the legislature and note with reference with the American people (Baum 32). He states further that in cases when the will of both the society and members of Congress is evident the Supreme Court often grants its support through its decisions.

However, during instances when it is evident that the will of the majority only represents the will of the representatives of the people and not the people themselves, the judicial review creates a threshold where the courts can protect the interests of the American people by limiting the power of the majority (Baum 38).

In the case of Marbury v Madison, the court gave its reason for dismissal of the petition as repugnancy of the statute, which provided the basis for the petition. In the case, President John Adams appointed William Marbury Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia. It was the duty of the Secretary of State at the time, James Madison, to deliver the commission to Marbury.

However, Madison refused to deliver the commission, thus prompting Marbury to petition to the Supreme Court seeking orders to force Madison to deliver the commission although the court found that Madison acted unlawfully by failing to deliver the commission, it ultimately ruled against Marbury.

he court found that the provision of the Judiciary Act, under which Marbury had petitioned, was unconstitutional as it extended the court’s original jurisdiction established under Article III of the constitution. The article established the judicial branch as well as powers the branch should exercise. The court dismissed the petition and explained that it had no obligation to abide by a statute made by Congress that made provisions contrary to those of the constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall found the provisions of the statute to be repugnant and thus inadmissible in determining the case. An analysis of the case with Baum’s argument on the entity constituting the majority reveals that judicial review in this case limited the rule of the members of Congress rather than the American people.

Baum defends the limitation of majority rule in this case by stating that the court also plays the role of defending the integrity of the constitution as part of its implementation. According to Baum, the constitution forms the fundamental law that lays ground for the generation of the rest of the laws in any society. In his analysis of the issue, he adds that the constitution represents the fundamental policies that define a society and govern its existence.

Therefore, any other policies that fail to comply with the provisions of the constitution fail in their representation of the majority (Baum 60). In his perspective therefore, nullification of such statutes by courts results in the protection of the will of the people rather than its limitations. According to this justification, judicial review limits majority rule in instances when the majority is an entity other than the American public and is thus legitimate.

One of the arguments that lawmakers have advanced against this perspective of the majority rule is that the legislature acts as a representative entity of the people in government and therefore the statues it enacts represent the will of the people.

Baum expounds that even though the legislature represents its electorates, the decisions individual members of Congress make are sometimes indicative of personal interests and go against the constitutional provisions. He insists that the court’s mandate regarding judicial review operates principally according to the constitutionality of a statute (Baum 65).

Another argument that some scholars advance against the limitation of majority rule is that courts use judicial review to dictate laws and create opportunities for the creation of other laws favorable to the institution. This argument stems out of the premise that some of the methods that the judiciary uses to interpret statutes allow it to overstep its mandate and assume the power of the legislature.

Such scholars note that one of the defenses the judiciary gives for such action is the absence of legislative provisions on some issues and vagueness in others. They add that by limiting the majority rule, the courts encourage the persistence of such inadequacies and subsequently create an environment that allows them to ‘create’ laws through case law and manipulate the direction in which Congress creates laws.

For instance Timothy Johnson, author of Oral Arguments and Decision Making in the United States Supreme Court, mentions the application of precedents as one of the methods judges of the Supreme Court apply when interpreting statutes and making decisions.

He explains that the application of the principle of precedents in case law requires judges of the Supreme Court to consider decisions the court has made in the past, exhibiting similar facts under similar circumstances. In most cases, lawyers also use this principle to support their cases and make compelling arguments (Johnson 43).

Although the argument bears some truth, it is critical to appreciate that judicial review seeks not to curtail the ability of the legislature to make laws, but it only prevents the application of repugnant statutes due to their unconstitutionality. Johnson explains that even though the Supreme Court sometimes bases some of its decisions on case law, it collectively considers other factors including statutory law.

He adds that case law often serves to clear doubts regarding the application of certain statutory provisions in cases where the provisions bear more than one meaning (Johnson 52).

Baum’s contribution regarding the use of case law in decision-making is that it creates some uniformity and eliminates the possibility of contradictory application of the law by the Supreme Court. In fact, the element of predictability in the application of case law makes the formulation of statutory laws easier as it allows lawmakers to spot gaps in legislative provisions and make appropriate changes, constitutionally.

He emphasizes that the Supreme Court cannot make laws and thus relies on the input of Congress in rectifying statutory inadequacies (Baum 72). In cases where Congress fails to identify such gaps in legislation, the courts continue to use case law.

It is also important to note that the inception of case law applicable as precedents always relies on existing laws. Any substantial alteration in the statutory provisions on which such case law is founded elicits formulation of new case law, which incorporates the current changes. The old cases only serve to persuade the court on points of law.

Conclusion

It is worth noting that the judiciary’s power to nullify laws passed by Congress only runs to the extent of the unconstitutionality of such laws. This provision ensures that the judiciary also stays within its mandate and does not extend its mandate to include making laws through disapproval of laws that do not appeal to the institution’s interests.

Although limitations of majority rule through judicial review lacks codification or universal acceptance, the application of the concept depends on the jurisdiction and regarding this case warrants acceptance in the United States. The power of judicial review exists in the American constitution as one of the roles of the judiciary, thus eliminating the need for elements such as international acceptance and statutory inclusion.

In addition, the concept of separation of power requires each branch of government to keep the other in check to avoid misuse of power, and thus the legislature should not be an exception based on the simple view of its representation of the people.

The limited majority rule is thus a valid and important concept with which all branches of the American government under the American constitution should comply, regardless of the arguments some scholars present against the idea. I chose the limited majority rule as my preferred option as the concept prevents the possibility of moral hazard and protects the interests of both the majority and the minority classifications of the populations that leaders represent.

Works Cited

Baum, Lawrence. The Supreme Court, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2012. Print.

Johnson, Timothy. Oral Arguments and Decision Making in the United States Supreme Court, New York: State University of New York Press, 2011. Print.

Introduction

The latter paper is an analysis of all the issues surrounding the United States vs. bass case of 2001. It will show how the Supreme Court’s ruling was incorrect based on evidence, law and statistics.

Why the Supreme Court’s ruling was incorrect

The death penalty can be regarded as one of the most controversial punishments in the country. Consequently, it is advisable to strongly consider all the policies and procedures that had been applied during this case and in other cases in order to determine whether administration of the death penalty was justified. One must look for either internal or external factors that could have influenced the court’s decision and see whether those factors are legally binding or not. In the case of the defendant, race should not be a contributory factor and if this is so, then it can be concluded that the ruling was unfair. Since it can be extremely difficult to determine whether race was used maliciously by the court in order to pass the sentence, then the defendant is complelled to rely on past statistics on the death penalty in order to argue his case. (Department of Justice Manual, p. 10).

The very fact that the District court felt that the defendant’s case warranted sufficient attention from the Supreme Court indicates that there was a strong possibility that race could have affected the latter’s decision. In other words, the US constitution – section 3593 states that all the decisions being made within a court of law concerning a death sentence need to be such that they would be upheld if the very same court had not known the defendant’s race.

When one examines a series of cases that are related to the US vs Bass case such as US vs Armstrong (1996), it is evident that the overall theme in these cases is to find out whether discrimination was intended by the prosecutors. In the US vs Bass scenario, it was determined that as soon as discovery is allowed by the court, then that is an indication that the discriminatory claim is a substantial one. In other words, the defendant is at a legally backed position simply as a result of there being no other proof to indicate that race was not a contributory factor.

In the US vs. Armstrong case (1996) it was stated that if another person facing the death penalty was in similar circumstances to the defendant (Armstrong), then the decisions arrived at by the court must be the same. Race can come in as a factor if the court has arrived at a dissimilar decision. Interestingly, this was what happened in Bass’s scenario as seen in the Supreme Court hearings. At that time, it was stated that the ratio of application of negated laws on blacks was much higher than it was for whites.

In order to understand the latter assertions, it is necessary to look at some of the statistical issues surrounding the matter. First of all, one should note that there are more whites than blacks in both federal and state prisons. Here, whites outweigh blacks by about nineteen percent within state prisons. Consequently, when sentences are being imposed, then they should be reflective of these very ratios. Nonetheless, it has been shown that there are overwhelming numbers of blacks who are liable to Bass’s sentence compared to their white counterparts. In fact, there are about twenty eight percent more blacks than whites facing death related crimes in the country’s judicial system (US vs Bass, p. 7).

One of the most dominant sources of discrimination in US history can be found within the criminal justice system. These instances of discrimination are often highlighted by numbers as statistics can be major indicators of such intent. When there are excessive numbers of minorities liable to death related charges even when the circumstances surrounding their cases are similar to those of other non minority groups, then it can be said that there is indeed discrimination that has taken place. The following facts indicate that there was an intention to discriminate the said defendant

• Persons charged with crime punishable through death in the district – 17
• Percentage of blacks in the latter – 83%
• Percentage of Hispanics in the latter scenario – 17%
• Percentage of Whites -0%
• Percentage of whites facing crimes punishable by death but due for pleas- 48%
• Percentage of blacks facing the same – 25%
• Percentage of Hispanics facing the same – 28%

As it can be seen from the latter facts and figures, despite higher numbers of whites being received in prisons and similar numbers of whites committing crimes that can be punishable by death, the manner of dealing with these cases is extremely different. This can be seen from the way the system grants plea bargains and also from the types of sentences that blacks have to answer to compared to their white counterparts in similar situations. Some serious flaws are therefore emerging in the criminal justice system; that it is enacting dissimilar charges and pleas to persons of different races. Care should therefore be taken to ensure that the punishments reflect the types of crimes being committed and not the suspects’ racial backgrounds (Bass v US, p. 6).

As of 1999, it was indicated that there were ten percent more blacks than whites within this specific District that were liable for conviction through the death penalty. Additionally, when it came to crimes that were eligible for punishment through death, it was found that a high percent of the cases under analysis actually reflected racial discrimination. Offences that were punishable through other mechanisms did not indicate this. It can therefore be argued that the over-representation of blacks in this category of offenses surmounts to discrimination since the ratio of blacks to whites is not reflective of actual criminal offenses punishable through death. Almost all offences committed within the said district had higher proportions of whites compared to blacks and this was also reflected in the kind of punishment they received. But when it came to the death penalty then some anomalies favoring the majority group began cropping up (Supreme Court of US vs Bass, p. 7).

This is an indication that the law was tilted towards one racial group than the other. A number of black defendants faced with crimes punishable by death are at a more vulnerable position than those ones facing other types of crime such as:

• Man slaughter
• Sexual abuse
• Immigration

In fact, Bass’s defense revealed that there are some consistencies when one examines treatment of offenders in the latter types of crimes as these cannot be punished through death. On the other hand, if one is to look at the case of crimes punishable by death, there are about forty eight percent blacks who were subjected to this while only twenty percent whites face such a charge in the entire country. This indicates that there should be measures put in place to ensure that all punishments are administered fairly and justly (Ashcroft, p. 12).

The latter case provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to look into some of the injustices that have been occurring in the criminal justice system and thus establish mechanisms of correcting them by not passing a judgment that seems to favor one racial group over the other. The latter assertions have also been supported by commentaries made by some of the most influential persons within the criminal justice system such as the Attorney General. The Supreme Court missed an opportunity of correcting an anomaly in treatment of diverse individuals within the criminal justice system. The law operates on a simple principle that if a person has committed a certain offense, then it is the duty of the system to ensure that the said individual undergoes the same procedures that another colleague in similar circumstances underwent. However, because there are high percentages of black persons who are subjected to the death penalty even when these percentages don’t reflect the numbers admitted into the criminal justice system for the same offenses, then it can be argued that there is indeed racial discrimination that has been going on in.

Some legal experts have argued that one cannot rely solely on statistics to argue out a case of discrimination. However, one cannot also ignore the fact that statistics are an important indicator of the driving forces of certain actions. If there are statistical inconsistencies in any type of offense, then this should be seen as sufficient ground to show that not all the decisions were devoid off prejudice and that justice may have been impeded as a result. In other words, since this evidence shows that there is no lack of discrimination then the Supreme Court should have held that it did exist (US v. John Bass, p. 4).

Conclusion

The amount of evidence in the US vs. Bass case was sufficient to indicate that Bass was a victim of racial prejudice in the legal system. He represented a group of African Americans liable to punishment by death who have been treated differently from their white counterparts in similar situations and who are facing the death penalty as well.

References

1. Supreme Court. US vs Bass 2001 FED App. 0340P (6th Cir.), File : 01a0340p.06. 2009.
2. Ashcroft, J. “Confirmation hearings on statistical survey.” US annual crime statistics 3 (1999): 45
3. US Department of Justice Manual. “Death penalty protocol.” US Attorney’s Manual. (1997): 9-10
4. Supreme Court opinion. US v. John Bass 2002 Supreme Court opinion 536 U.S. 862 (2002) (per curiam)
5. District Court. Bass v US 1994 30 F.3d 133
6. Supreme Court. “US vs Bass 2002.” Petition for writ of certiorarari. (2002): 01-1471

Lifetime Appointment to the Supreme Court

Providing no lifetime limits for appointing the Supreme Court contradicts the democratic underpinning. There is also a threat that the Supreme Court will become more subjective and less reliable on the established rules and legal principles. In this respect, it is paramount to establish limits for appointing judges to the Supreme Court because this will contribute to social and democratic justice.

Apart from legal issues, such a decision can improve economic and political situation through providing vacancies on a relatively regular basis (Bardes et al, 2008, p. 434). Such a system can refresh the views on legal issues and establish less stereotypic judgments, which is especially important at the age of democracy in the United States. However, lifetime appointment can guarantee the security of federal government and independent of judicial system (Rutkus, 2010, p. 1). While choosing the least of two evils, the former sounds more reasonable and effective.

The Doctrine of Stare Decisis

The principle of stare decisis implies that judges follow previous decisions in defining the guiltiness or innocence of an accused person (Harr and Mess, 2007, p 40). On the one hand, this doctrine ensures the judicial system with a kind of objectivity and deprives judges of prejudice justices. This specifically concerns the cases when judges are too subjective in passing the sentence. Nevertheless, the previous legal decisions are possibly made on another basis, which creates probability that there will be unprecedented cases. Therefore, it is unreasonable to strictly follow the principles of common love, particularly when it comes to criminal cases.

Along with social changes, people are in greater need of legal changes. This is a common principle of regular social development. In this regard, society cannot follow the old-fashion rules that remain unchanged. For instance, with the rise of technological advancement, greater range of weapons has become available for people. Besides, there is also a necessity to reconsider the problem of capital punishment due to the shift in morality and ethics.

Reference List

Harr, J. S. and Hess, K. M. (2007). Constitutional Law and Criminal Justice System. US: Cengage Learning.

Rutkus, D. S. (2010). Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate. US: DIANE Publishing.

When I first entered the courtroom, I was captivated by the atmosphere. Although this was my first experience of attending the Mock Trial at Brooklyn Federal Court, the entire process was so reminiscent of the true trial in which a serious and professional judge dressed in a robe, an objective jury, and two counsels. As this significant procedure was held in the morning, everyone was quite cheerful and ready to fight for the truth.

It seemed as if their Counsels’ confrontation could lead to a real explosion in the court. The tone of the trial was official and serious because it can be deduced from the official clothing and expressions on the participants’ faces. But it was especially interesting for me is whether the law can fairly justify the accused guilty or innocent.

At the first stages of the procedure, the Counsels succinctly and accurately presented the scope of the case. The defendant was accused of murder, but the motives of the crime were unknown. First, the Council of Defense, Mr. Thornfield, revealed the misconceptions and controversies concerning this case. In particular, he said that both his client Mr. Derek Thomson and Miss Gallaher, had had equal opportunities for committing the crime.

The problem was that the detective, nevertheless, allowed her to leave the country. The Counsel of the Defense looked quite persuasive and professional; his speech was consistent; his gestures and mimics were sufficiently reserved. Mr. Thornfield was, indeed, the embodiment of style and professionalism, although this character was played by an average student. I cannot tell the same about Mr. Foster, the Prosecutor who behaved a bit unceremoniously while conducting cross-examination.

While watching the procedure, I was enjoying the cross-examination conducted by Mr. Thornfield. His questions were quite consistent and narrow and did not impose any ambiguity. However, I was a bit astonished by the scene when Mr. Thornfield was trying to stand his point of view by disapproving of the Prosecutor objections. This was a true justification of a real lawyer. Once he heard the word “Objections!” he skillfully replied:

Your honor, we do not offer this particular question the truth of the matter. Rather, we are trying to point out the reason for the conflict between two prosecution witnesses’ stories, which illustrate the dishonesty of one of the testimonies. Perhaps, this can be a viable motive for murder.

I believe that this particular explanation and his other assumptions were purely objective and logical, as he was relying on facts only. In comparison with the Counsel of Defense, Mr. Foster was unable to present viable evidence and arguments for organizing the backfield.

I have always wanted to see the process of cross-examination and the way both Counsels presented their material evidence and documents either to support a hypothesis or to repudiate it. This time, all the presented testimonies sounded quite true and realistic. All actors looked natural, and there was not a single sign that this was just a competition between the students. I was especially captured by the witness’s testimony provided by Miss Courtney, who managed to act like a person who had been concealing an important truth that would have helped to detect the crime much easier. To my surprise, brilliant Mr. Thornfield made the impossible and managed to unmask the witness.

For some moment, I even forgot that this trial was not real because all remarks and dialogues, judge’s speech, prosecutor witnesses were performed quite realistic. So, even students’ slightest gestures and intonation were highly professional and artistic.

I could not but pay attention to Prosecutor’s intensive speech before the Jury. Mr. Foster desperately tried to bring clarification to the evidence presented by the Counsel of Defense to show that they are not valid. Certainly, his logical inferences and conclusions made some sense, but, in my mind, the Prosecutor backed the wrong position, which was primarily based on some lyrical digression.

However, I used to watch movies where other impudent prosecutors were doing the same to prove the guilt. Who knows, maybe this is the only way to lock up the defendant. Like in most stories, the culmination appears at the end of the story when the Counsels pronounced their final speech in front of the Jury and were waiting for the doom moments. The Jury has put forward the reached verdict – not guilty. Cries of joys, exclamations from the audience – that we’re the only scenes I remember.

In conclusion, the Mock Trial did not look like a Mock Trial, but a veritable court procedure with a real case, a serious jury, and a judge. So, I was satisfied with the participants’ attitude to the competition as well as with the procedure results. All the outcome of the trial was predictable and banal; this competition was one more attempt to prove that good and law should prevail over the criminal world. Besides, this was a great experience for me to watch a real confrontation of prejudices, evidence, and arguments.

Thesis

The introduction of the new British Supreme Court has involved different constitutional implications, such as changing the role of the Lord Chancellor and creating a position of President of the Court of England and Wales; the new Supreme Court is predicted to be more powerful than the House of Lords committee due to its ability to assert itself in opposition to the government.

Introduction

One of the primary purposes of any government is to ensure that the country has a just court and sound constitution which clearly defines the rights of the citizens. Achieving this purpose is extremely difficult for the United Kingdom which has to establish justice in a number of countries which is consists of. Recently, on October 1, 2009 the country has opened new Supreme Court which “replaced the Law Lords as the nation’s highest court of appeal for all criminal and civil cases, except criminal trials in Scotland” (Great Britain: Supreme Court Sworn In 2009, para.1). The new British Court was created with respect to the Constitutional Reform Act (2005) with its main role at present consisting in hearing appeals from the legal systems of Scotland, England and Wales, and Northern Ireland; at this, the court of first instance with regards to criminal cases is still located in Scotland (Scottish Courts 2009). The introduction of the new British Supreme Court has involved different constitutional implications, such as changing the role of the Lord Chancellor and creating a position of President of the Court of England and Wales; the new Supreme Court is predicted to be more powerful than the House of Lords committee due to its ability to assert itself in opposition to the government.

Discussion

Firstly, the introduction of the new The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has entailed a number of constitutional implications. The creation of the new court separates the senior judges from the Parliamentary process. This draws additional attention to the issue of the infringement of the judicial independence, because “the independence of the Court may increase the extent to which it is perceived as a political player and used for political purposes” (Woodhouse 2006, 134). Since for the centuries the United Kingdom has been a country with no written constitution, several rules had to be developed in order to protect judicial independence. These rules are as follows:

• Judges are independent of the executive and the legislature – and vice versa – and do not get involved in political debate;
• Apart from modern rules relating to age and health, judges of the High Court and above cannot be removed from office without an address passed by both houses of parliament; and
• Judges are almost entirely immune from the risk of being sued or prosecuted for what they do in their capacity as a judge. (Judicial independence 2009, para. 3)

Over the years the country managed to survive on these rules. However, with the adoption of the Constitutional Reform Act (2005) judicial independence started to be defined by law. This drastically changed the role of the Lord Chancellor who once had to be the head of the judiciary court, but has lost some of the powers, the judicial ones in particular, in accordance with the principle of the powers separation. The Lord Chancellor “has become a more traditional cabinet minister, responsible … for legal aid, the Law Commission and the court system” (Elliott and Quinn 2007, p. 142). This changed significantly the educational background which a person has to possess to be appointed on this position. Prior to the adoption of the act in question, the Lord Chancellor had to be a lawyer, but now such a person is qualified by experience. Such experience “could have been gained as a Government Minister, a member of either Houses of Parliament, a qualified lawyer, a teacher of law in a university or ‘other experience the Prime Minister considers relevant’” (Elliott and Quinn 2007, p. 142). Thus, the impact of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom consisted in separating senior judges from the Parliamentary process and in depriving Lord Chancellor of his judiciary powers.

These changes have further entailed other constitutional implications. Since Lord Chancellor has been deprived of his powers, they had to be transferred to somebody else. This is why a new position within the Parliament has been created. This was the position of President of the Court of England and Wales who became the head of the judiciary and overtook the functions of the Lord Chancellor (Elliott and Quinn 2007). President of the Court of England and Wales was the new title given to the Lord Chief Justice; according to the Constitutional Reform Act, this person “is now responsible for the training, guidance and deployment of judges and represents the views of the judiciary of England and Wales to Parliament and ministers” (The Constitutional Reform Act 2009, para. 3). President of the Court of England and Wales also started to be responsible for the work of twelve judges who constitute the Appellate Committee which earlier belonged to the House of Lords, but was transferred to the new Supreme Court and started to be referred to as Justices of the Supreme Court. According to the rules of the new court,

Judges of the Supreme Court will be prohibited from sitting or voting in the House of Lords and from membership of the House of Commons … Prior to submitting a nomination for royal approval, an elaborate consultative and selection process will be undertaken by an ad hoc Selection Commission of five members. The Commission will include the Lord Chief Justice and other senior judicial figures. (Carroll 2007, p. 43)

Therefore, the constitutional implications which the new Supreme Court has entailed are the change of the obligations of the Lord Cancellor, the establishment of the new position of President of the Court of England and Wales, and the transference of the Appellate Committee to the new Supreme Court.

Assessing the power of the new Supreme Court, it may be stated that its powers could indeed be greater than those of the House of Lords committee. So far, however, this can be a mere prediction for the court was established relatively recently. As stated by Lord Neuberger who used to be a Lord of Appeal before the Supreme Court was created, the new court had enough powers to become an opposition to the government with “judges arrogating to themselves greater power that they have at the moment” (Judge warns 2009, para. 2). Besides, it is considered that the new court will improve the judiciary in the country, as well as the executive processes carried out.

Conclusion

In sum, the introduction of the British Supreme Court has entailed several constitutional changes within the government. Thus, Lord Chancellor lost some of his powers and started dealing with legal issues only. A part of his powers has been transferred to President of the Court of England and Wales, a new position created by the Constitutional Reform Act (2005). The issue of the new court’s powers is still debatable, though it is believed to be more powerful than the House of Lords committee due to its ability to become an opposition to the Government.

References

‘Great Britain: Supreme Court Sworn In, Hears First Case’ 2009, World News Digest, Web.

‘Judge warns of “assertive” potential of Supreme Court’ 2009, The Journal Online, Web.

‘Judicial independence’ 2009, Judiciary of England and Wales, Web.

‘The Constitutional Reform Act 2005’ 2009, Judiciary of England and Wales, Web.

Carroll, A 2007, Constitutional and administrative law, Pearson Education, London.

Elliott, C and Quinn, F 2007, English legal system, Pearson Education, London.

Scottish Courts 2009, Court of Session, Scottish Courts, Web.

Woodhouse, D 2006, ‘The constitutional and political implications of a United Kingdom Supreme Court,’ Legal Studies, vol. 24, num. 1-2, pp. 134-155.

Apprendi vs. New Jersey was a decision made by the highest court of the United States. The court passed that the sixth revision on right to judges’ trial introduced to the state by the fourteenth amendment denied judges the right to sentence criminals beyond what is provided by the law. It requires the judges to have clear information on what the case pertains before making their judgment. The decision has been important in the current revival of adjudicators’ trial rights.

In dawn of December 22, 1994, Charles Apprendi fired numerous bullets into the residence of an African-American family that had migrated to his locality. Hours later, Charles was arrested and on questioning he accepted that he shot at the house because its occupants were not of his race. He said that he did not want them within his vicinity and that is why he shot at their house. Apprendi also pleaded guilty of illegally possessing a fire arm. Each of his crimes carried a sentence of between 5 and 10 years imprisonment. The court reserved the right of making the sentence more severe as the crime had been committed in a biased motive. This meant that the court had the discretion of doubling the period of each sentence. On the other hand, Apprendi had the right to challenge the alteration of the sentence claiming that it was against the constitution. The judge gave in to Apprendi’s appeal. At a later hearing, Apprendi and psychologists claimed that he did it out of alcohol influence. However, from evidence adduced, the judge found that his action was out of race hatred. Apprendi was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment which was two years more than what is supposed for illegally owning a fire arm (Cassella Par. 2-4).

Appendi’s appeal was denied by the New Jersey court of appeal on the basis that increment of prison serving period was a sentencing aspect and not part of the crime. This case changed the rulings with matters pertaining criminal cases. It meant that from then, other than evidence of prior conviction, any other evidence that would lead to the sentence being made more severe had to be presented to judges and critically analyzed. According to Oliver Wendell, this case showed how law threatens criminals by inflicting severe punishment if they happen to be involved in crimes making them change their intentions. For instance the New Jersey law exposed severe punishment on Apprendi for illegally owning a fire arm and violating the law that prohibits racial discrimination (Standen Par. 1).

Law protects criminal defendants in two ways against exploitation by juries. First, every accusation made against a criminal has to be later scrutinized by a panel of twelve persons from the defendant side. Second, the jury has to proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person is accountable to all accusations presented in court. People argue that sentencing enhancement needs also to meet the reasonable doubt condition. This is because it leads to people being subjected to severe punishment by considering other evidences that are not part of the crime committed. This would not be just as it would generalize crimes assuming the magnitude of crime committed by the criminal. It only requires the establishment of varied sentencing factors to help in charging people as per their level of crime. This is aimed at changing the system of prosecution from one that follows a guideline to a legislative sentencing system.

Works cited

Cassella, Stefan. “Does Apprendi v. New Jersey Change the Standard of Proof in Criminal Forfeiture Cases?” 2009. Web.

Standen, Jeffrey. “The End of the Era of Sentencing Guidelines: Apprendi v. New Jersey.” 2002. Web.

Facts: On February 10, 1983, Stefan Golab, a worker at Film Recovery, fell ill while performing his duties. He was rushed to the hospital after losing consciousness and foaming at the mouth. Upon arrival at the hospital, however, he was pronounced dead and an autopsy was performed to determine the cause of his death. The autopsy results indicated that Golab had died of acute cyanide poisoning that he had inhaled while working at the company’s plant. The defendant, Steven O’Neil who was a senior manager at the company was charged with murder together with two fellow managers. The grand jury argued that as senior officials at the company, the three individuals had knowingly created an environment that led to Golab’s death by failing to advise and train him on the dangerous chemicals and provide him with protective equipment. Likewise, the company, Film Recovery, and her sister company, Metallic Marketing, were charged with involuntary manslaughter. The argument was that the companies had unintentionally murdered Golab through the negligent acts of their directors. In addition to the murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, the jury also charged the individual and corporate defendants with reckless conduct.

Issue: Two issues were raised by the individual defendants. First, O’Neil and his colleagues argued that murder and reckless conduct require different mental states in that for the former to occur, it must be both knowingly and intentional while the former occurs unintentionally. An act therefore cannot be murder and reckless conduct at the same time, hence the inconsistency in the charges. Secondly, the defendants argued that the murder charges were inconsistent with the involuntary manslaughter charge against the corporate defendants.

Holding: It was held that the charges made against the defendants were inconsistent. It was also held that the charges against the individual defendants do not provide the basis upon which criminal responsibility can be established against the corporate defendants.

Reasoning: The court argued that murder is committed when a person kills another knowingly and intentionally without any lawful reason to justify his actions. On the other hand, manslaughter is committed when a person kills another person unintentionally without any lawful reason to justify his actions. These two actions, therefore, require different mental states. Reckless conduct is any act that leads to the death or grave bodily harm to another person resulting from reckless behavior. Because the charges made against the defendants are based on one event, their actions could not have been intentional and unintentional at the same time and therefore the charges are not legally consistent.

In Illinois, a corporation has criminal responsibility for acts committed by its directors and other high managerial officers working within the limits of their employment and having the necessary mental state. Based on the testimony presented, the court was unable to relate the charges made against the individual defendants with those made against the corporate defendants.

Rule: The holding and reasoning of this case were based on the Criminal Code of 1961 which clearly defines and distinguishes murder, involuntary manslaughter, and reckless conduct. They were also governed by the Illinois criminal statutes which clearly define corporate criminal responsibility.

Concurring: Judge Lorenz agreed with the holding presented by the court by arguing that the charges made against the defendants were indeed inconsistent.

Dissenting: There are no dissenting judges.

References

Findlaw.com. People v. O’Neil, 550 N.E.2d 1090 (1990). Web.