The Judicial arm of the government is represented by various courts of law across the United States. The Supreme Court is the principal among these courts in accordance with Article III of the US constitution. The Supreme Court consists of eight Justices and one Chief Justice (Les Benedict, 2007).
The tenure of Supreme Court Justices lasts a lifetime as outlined in the country’s constitution. This means that the occupancy of the Supreme Court rarely changes. For instance, in the course of the last two centuries, the Supreme Court has only had seventeen Chief Justices.
The importance of the Supreme Court to the country has been cemented through the various powers bestowed upon the court by Article III of the constitution.
Article III begins by stating that the Supreme Court’s “judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority, to all Cases affecting Ambassadors…. to controversies to which the United States shall be a Party” (Brilmayer, 2009).
The powers bestowed upon the Supreme Court are unlike any powers that have been bestowed upon any other entity in the United States. For instance, all constitutional disputes in the US can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. Neither the executive nor the Congress or the Senate has been accorded with such powers by the constitution.
Also, any decisions made by the other two arms of the government can be reversed by the Supreme Court. Article III of the constitution also grants the Supreme Court with the power to settle ‘extra ordinary’ disputes.
For example, the Supreme Court can settle disputes between a state versus another state, a state versus citizens of another state, and a group of states versus another state. All these kinds of disputes could be deemed extra ordinary even by federal courts. The power to appoint Justices of the Supreme Court falls jointly upon the president and the Senate.
Throughout the United State’s history, the Supreme Court has delivered several momentous rulings on various topics. Some of these rulings have sparked lively debates among US citizens and even around the world. Moreover, these momentous rulings have often touched on controversial topics such as abortion, religion, and civil rights.
An example of an old debate that was affected by a Supreme Court Ruling is the debate surrounding the Louisiana Purchase. In the matter of America Insurance Company v. Canter, “the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the right to acquire new territories under the treaty-making clause of the constitution” (Warren, 2003).
This ruling was made in 1828, approximately twenty-five years after the Louisiana Purchase had been concluded. The public reacted sharply to this ruling because the debate surrounding the Louisiana Purchase had reached fever pitch.
The Louisiana Purchase was initiated and concluded by President Thomas Jefferson. In this massive transaction, the federal government had overseen the purchase of over eight hundred thousand square miles of land. When this transaction was complete, the United States’ territory doubled in size.
The debate surrounding the Louisiana Purchase centered on the fact that no segment of the constitution gave the federal government the right to expand geographical territory. This could have made the Louisiana Purchase unconstitutional. The constitutionality of this new US territory was tested in America Insurance Company v. Canter.
In this case, David Canter a libellant was appealing against a decision by a Florida court that challenged the federal government’s authority in seeking new territories. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor arguing that the Federal Government had the authority to acquire new territories. The Supreme Court Justices cited Article IV of the US constitution in their ruling (Warren, 2003).
The argument of the Supreme Court was that some laws such as the maritime laws had existed even before the enactment of the constitution. Therefore, the territories clause of the Constitution granted Congress the rights to ‘acquire and govern’ territories.
This ruling put an end to a debate that had been on going for over two decades. Thomas Jefferson himself had doubted the constitutionality of his actions (Les Benedict, 2007). However, the Supreme Court ruling on the matter concerning the legitimacy of Louisiana Purchase put all doubts to rest. The interesting thing about this ruling is that the issue had started as an insurance dispute that soon degenerated into a constitutional dispute.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court Ruling was valid because it cited appropriate and satisfactory legislations. The Louisiana Purchase had been challenged and defended through various legislations, but the Supreme Court Justices made the right interpretations. The ruling was also practical because of its reference to maritime laws. The Supreme Court should continue with its role as the national dispute resolver.
Anytime a matter of national importance is not agreed upon by the necessary arms of the government; it is upon the Supreme Court to chart the way forward. The court is also the defender of the ordinary citizens against erroneous decisions by lower courts. The only rubric that should be used in Supreme Court decisions is the constitution. Public euphoria, partisan politics, and past rulings should not feature in Supreme Court rulings.
References
Brilmayer, L. (2009). The jurisprudence of Article III: perspectives on the “case or controversy” requirement. Harvard Law Review, 8(2), 297-321.
Les Benedict, M. (2007). The blessings of liberty: a concise history of the Constitution of the United States. New York, NY: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.
Warren, C. (2003). The progressiveness of the United States Supreme Court. Columbia Law Review, 13(4), 294-313.
Interpreters play a crucial role that facilitates communication between individuals, including the defendants, juries and attorneys. There have been tremendous and profound transformations of the way interpreters play their role in court proceedings (Wilson, 2013).
Since they are a central area of interest, this paper will analyze the past, present, and future issued revolving around interpreters. Also, the discussion will focus on how a victim rights laws affect the proceedings of the courts.
Past Issues and Trends
The USA started recognizing the importance of interpreters during a court proceeding in 1970 when the demand for their services increased in statutory and federal courts. Particularly, the courts needed assistance from Spanish interpreters to conduct successful proceedings in the court.
Whereas they needed their services direly, the courts could hardly find them due to unavailability. Since the demand had arisen freshly, they were not treated as part of the courthouse. They could only attend the proceeding and then leave the premises. Unfortunately, there were profound stigmas that affected their work since most of the players in court had a bad attitude to them.
First, the attorneys could suspect that these interpreters had a connection with the victims. As a result, they were not informed about the details of the proceedings. The worst scenarios were the in which the interpreters did not even know the name of defendants for half of the entire period of interpretation.
These stigmas had intensified to the extent that the court clerks opposed the right of the defendant having interpreters. In essence, when they were hired to interpret for the court, the clerks did not understand what they needed to execute their role, or whether they could do it correctly.
Having suffered many humiliations, the interpreters started rebuilding their disparaged reputation by adopting professionalism and creating favorable working relations with the members of the courts. Their efforts enabled the conception and enactment of Court Interpreter’s Act that was stipulated in 1979.
Under this act, the Spanish interpreters were certified, and the courts began stipulating the qualification standard for interpreters. The certification was the first major step towards the integration of interpreters in the court systems. Afterward, both federal and state courts created an interpreter post in their organizational structures.
Present
As a result of continuous scrutiny and development of professionalism, the state and federal governments have certified about 800 Spanish interpreters to serve the courts (Brems & Gerald, 2014). In essence, they are presently considered as mentors, leaders, and role models regarding professional interpretation (Shlesinger, 2010).
How interpreters interact with members of the courts, including the attorneys, clerks, and judges, has improved significantly. The courts have set out to shape modern interpreting department to ensure that the interpreters are involved in the critical activities. Also, the interpreters are informed about the details of the court since they can be entrusted with the information given by the clerks and attorneys.
Future trend and Issues of interpretation
Whereas the professional has improved profoundly, there are sustained challenges regarding interpretation. The courts have focused on Spanish since it has the highest number of cases. Accordingly, they have disregarded other languages by considering them as being less important than Spanish. In the future, courts will be forced to develop the interpretation in other languages since the world has globalized.
Also, the courts do not exist in isolation, but they work amidst a global environment. As a result, they need to develop the international standards that can be used to determine the qualification of interpreters from any part of the world. The development of international standards is necessitated by the high possibility of dealing with people from various countries whose interpreters are not necessarily from the country of litigation.
Also, the juries need to initiate conception of elevated testing standards to increase and build on accuracy bearing in mind that the veracity of interpretation is a very crucial aspect. The future courts also need to employ an experienced, dignified, and knowledgeable interpreter mandated to oversee the accuracy, professionalism, and efficiency of the hired personnel.
The undertaking should be accompanied by improved administrative support when it comes to data entry, communication, and provision of equipment.
Lastly, the future world is going to an exclusively technological level. In this regard, the courts and the entire legal profession will not be an exception to this development. As a result, the involved department should provide devices for electronic transmission of information rather than relying on the physical capability of the interpreters during proceedings.
Victim Rights Laws and their Impacts on Court Proceedings
Past and Present Impacts
The Victim’s Rights Law provides a victim, who has been affected by a commission of a criminal offense, the right of protection, impartiality, respect, and dignity without compromising the constitutional right of the offender (Davis, 2009). In the past and present, the law has helped many victims of sexual assault and violence to seek justice without fear of compromising their security.
It facilitates fast and efficient consideration of the case provided by such people in their quest for justice. Some attorneys have used this clause as the basis of setting up some centers where the victims can submit their complaints. Having purported the creation of these centers, the offended people can submit their cases easily since they go through the lawyers in contrary to tendering them personally.
Future Impacts
Since the level of crime, drug trafficking, and violence, there is a very high possibility for the courts to create new posts for Victim Rights Department. In this case, it is not appropriate for the courts, which claim to provide justice to all citizens, to ignore the plight of voiceless people and rely on other private institutions. As a result, this person will be involved during the court proceeding to uphold the rights of offended people.
Conclusion
It is evident that the interpreters have undergone a profound transformation in light of developing their professionalism. In the past, they suffered segregation, humiliation, and lack of equipment needed for interpretation.
Nonetheless, the present interpreters have adopted high levels of professionalism that have made the courts to incorporate them in their organizational structure. In the future, however, the courts need to conceive proficient transmission systems and implement high testing standards.
References
Brems, E., & Gerald, J. (2014). Shaping Rights in the ECHR The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, R. C. (2009). Securing rights for victims a process evaluation of the National Crime Victim Law Institute’s victims’ rights clinics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Shlesinger, M. (2010). Doing justice to court interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Pub. Company.
Wilson, J. (2013). American law yearbook 2012 a guide to the year’s major legal cases and developments. Detroit, Mich.: Gale.
Courts play a very important role in the justice system. They are part of the judicial system, and they are presided over by judges and magistrates who interpret and determine different types of cases as stipulated by the law. Also, all judicial officers are required to exhibit high levels of integrity, knowledge of the law, and impartiality to enable them to make fair rulings.
In modern times, courts have also been used as institutions were accused of committing various crimes are either proved guilty or innocent. As a result, they are an important part of the criminal justice system because they allow judges to use established laws to administer punishments for crimes committed by various offenders. This paper will discuss court purposes and responsibilities and their relevance in modern justice systems.
Judicial officers work together with police organizations, lawyers, child service organizations, and health experts to uphold the law. A judge uses his or her legal knowledge to decide whether various types of evidence and witnesses brought in by defense and prosecution teams are admissible before the court.
In many criminal cases, a jury panel consisting of people from different backgrounds listens to the proceedings and afterward, makes a verdict that shows if a defendant is guilty or innocent. After the trial hearings have been concluded, members of the jury deliberate and make a collective decision which they present to the court as their verdict.
During their deliberations, members of the jury evaluate the evidence presented before the court to come up with an appropriate verdict (Peak, 2008, p. 72). After receiving the verdict, the judge decides the penalty to be administered about the severity of the crime committed and the criminal history of the defendant.
Courts are respected by all citizens because they are independent institutions which are accountable to the existing constitutional framework. Courts also serve as impartial arbiters to various conflicts by interpreting and making fair rulings as stipulated by the law. In civil suits, courts determine whether a person who has been subjected to physical or emotional pain by another person deserves to be compensated.
Therefore, in many instances, courts may award damages to a victim of a wrongful act to ensure the defendant understands the consequences of his actions. Before awarding any claim, a judge has to use his wisdom to establish the accuracy of the facts presented and how they are related to the existing laws (Peak, 2008, p. 75). As a result, courts are empowered to use the law to defend the weak and defenseless in society.
All judicial officers and other professionals that work in the justice system are required to adhere to codes of conduct which have been set up by the law. This ensures that any judicial matter brought before the court goes through correct procedures to safeguard the rights and dignity of all people involved. A judicial system has to be fair and transparent to gain the trust and confidence of the people it serves (Peak, 2008, p. 79).
Therefore, judges, magistrates, and other professionals in the justice system need to collaborate to attain positive results in their duties. Also, a competent judicial system should be accessible to all people regardless of their social or economic statuses. As a result, this strengthens their beliefs in the rule of law.
Reference
Peak, K.J. (2008). Justice administration: Police, courts, and corrections management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
During the last decade there has been an ongoing debate on the influence that certain ‘subjective’ factors have on court sentences. Many authors argue that the juridical system is influenced by certain subjective factors in its decision making process. Evidence shows “that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts”. (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004) Other evidence shows also “a significant, strong and independent impact of unemployment on pretrial and post sentencing incarceration” (Chiricos & Bales, 1991).
Unemployment and punishment
Various authors have tried to prove that labor market marginality is a factor that influences court sentencing. They argue that combined with other factors, such as race, it becomes clearly a determining factor. Nevertheless, the data available have been considered not to be conclusive. Chiricos and Bales undertook in 1991 a research in order to assess the relationship between labor market marginality and court sentencing. They performed a multivariate logic and an ELS evaluation for this purpose. The study was conducted by selecting felons on a random sampling basis. Differentiating from their predecessors they tried to look at the impact unemployment had on the entire criminal justice process. Thus, they analyzed outcomes in relation to prosecution, incarceration and (in/out) and length of incarceration.The study found that from the interaction of race and unemployment “the greatest likelihood of incarceration is for unemployed black defendants, especially those who are young males or charged with violent and public order crimes” (Chiricos & Bales, 1991).
Juvenile delinquency
Another problem was that juvenile delinquents were treated more severely than young adult offenders. In 2004 Kurlychek and Johnson undertook a study on this purpose.In the beginning of the 1990’s 49 states and the District of Columbia expanded the provisions by which juveniles could reach adult courts.These provisions allowed that based on prior criminal history and in consideration of the current offense, they could be transferred for trial in adults courts. Thus, it is important to better understand the criminal processing and sentencing outcomes for this category (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004). They found that juvenile status interacted and influenced other sentencing factors such as type of offense, severity and prior criminal history. Thus courts were more eager to punish juveniles more severely than young adults. The figure below shows how juvenile status influences sentencing.
Conclusions
There are many subjective factors which influence court sentencing. Two of them are juvenile status and unemployment. Of course, these factors do have a stronger effect combined together and with other factors such as race and ethnicity or religion.
References
Chiricos, Th. & Bales, W. (1991).”Unemployment and punishment: an empirical assessment.” Criminology, vol. 29, no. 4.
Kurlychek, M. & Johnson, B. (2004). “The juvenile penalty: a comparison of juvenile and young adult sentencing outcomes in criminal court”. Criminology, vol. 42, no. 2.
14thMay 2010 was the date set aside for the sentencing hearing of the case where Mr. Charles Dempsey had been charged with one count of robbery with violence and one count of causing bodily harm to Mr. George Michael. The judgment of this case number () was being made at the central court house in San Diego California and was being presided over by Lady justice Emma Bailey of the Supreme Court of California. The prosecution was being led by an attorney called Theodore Tomlinson. The defendant Mr. Charles Dempsey was being represented by his own attorney called Bill Thomas while the plaintiff was being represented by an attorney called Alistair Campbell. The case had gone through the plea hearing, the preliminary hearing the trial hearing and was to be decided on this day during the sentencing hearing where the judge was supposed to deliver the Judgment. The case started with reading of the charges against Dempsey. The charges were read out by the prosecutor, Theodore Tomlinson.
Apparently, Mr. Dempsey, the owner of the Medieval Motors had sold a vehicle to Michael on 2nd February 2010. The vehicle was a Volvo in model and the cost of the vehicle was $ 80,000. Mr. Dempsey was supposed to pay a quarter of the whole amount for car to own it and then pay the balance in five equal monthly installments. The deal was done and Michael took the car home. Michael paid the first three installments without trouble but he was unable to pay the fourth installment in time because a technical problem with his accounts. He requested Mr. Dempsey to allow him to pay the installment late by ten days but he would hear none of that. Two days after the deadline had elapsed; Mr. Dempsey stormed into Michael’s premises demanding to be paid the money. Michael pleaded with him but he did not cooperate. The vehicle that Michael had bought from Dempsey was not in the compound as his wife had used it to travel to Los Angeles. Dempsey left Michaels’s premises and came back with his three bodyguards. Under the watch of the three bodyguards, Dempsey beat up Michael, injuring his left leg and bruising his left arm. He then forcefully took the keys to his Volkswagen Passat valued at $ 95,000 and drove away with it. Mr. Dempsey refused to hand over the Passat even when Michael was stable enough to pay the remaining installments saying that the contract had been breached. That is why Dempsey was arraigned in court charged with a criminal offense of stealing a Volkswagen Passat valued at 95,000 US dollars from Michael and causing serious bodily harm to the plaintiff. According to US law, robbery with violence is punishable by a sentence of not less than five years in prison depending on the gravity of the crime (Gerven, 2001). That is why the defendant’s attorneys have been pleading with the prosecution to treat this case as one misdemeanor and not a felony.
After reading out the charges, the prosecution called the plaintiff’s attorney to cross-examine the defendant. The defendant has been denying the charges all along and it was time for the attorney to make the final cross-examination. During the cross-examination, the court found out that there was no agreement between Dempsey and Michael on the action that the defendant would take if the installments were late. The only agreement that was there was that if the plaintiff was unable to pay the installments, the defendant would repossess the car, sell it and then pay back the plaintiff 50 percent of the amount that had been already paid for the car. The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client was not in any way unable to pay the installments and he had requested additionally to sort the technical hitches that had delayed his money. The defendant defended himself by saying that the policies of his motor company dictate that a vehicle is supposed to be repossessed if the customer is late in paying the installments by more than two days (Michel, 1995). The attorney told him to show the court whether that policy was written anywhere in the agreement but he was unable to. The attorney then faulted the defendant for the action he took because what he did was not repossessing but stealing. This is because when you repossess, according to the attorney, you take back what you had sold but in this case, Mr. Dempsey took a Volkswagen Passat whose value was higher than the Volvo that he had sold to Michael.. This, according to the attorney, is prohibited by the law because any repossession must be authorized by a court law (Lunney, 2003The attorney finished by saying that there is no difference between the defendant and the highway robber who waylays a motorist and robs him of his car at gunpoint because violence was involved when Dempsey forcefully took the keys to the Passat and drove off (Garner, 1997). After the cross-examination of the defendant, the prosecution called upon the defendant’s attorney to cross-examine the plaintiff. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff’s attorney, after asking questions made some generalizations that would have turned the case around in favor of the defendant. The attorney argued that the plaintiff was out to swindle his client and that is why he had taken the Volvo that he was unable to pay for into hiding so that his client could not repossess the car). He defended his client saying that he was justified in taking the Volkswagen Passat because the car that was in contention was not around and he was not sure whether the car was still inexistent. He also defended the company’s policy of repossessing cars after two days of installments deadline saying that though the clause was not in the hire purchase agreement, Michael was aware of the existent of the clause and that is why he had paid his previous two installments in time and that is also why he requested for a deadline extension. According to US laws, one is not supposed to make assumptions; everything should be written down in an agreement (Noyes, 2007).
After the cross-examination of the plaintiff and the defendant, the prosecution called in two witnesses who were there when Dempsey attacked Michael as he took the keys to the Volkswagen Passat. The first Witness was a guard at Michael’s premises called Walter Smith. He was cross-examined by both attorneys and he said that Dempsey had forced his way into Michael’s compound, and he became violent when he was informed that he had trespassed into a private compound. The witness said that the injuries that Michael suffered would have been worse had some guards in a neighboring school and he had not intervened. The witness said that Dempsey removed the car keys forcefully from Michaels’s suitcase which he tore apart before driving off with the highly valued car together with his three bodyguards.
The second witness that was called by the prosecution to give evidence to the court was one of Dempsey’s bodyguards. He claimed that his boss did not have the intention of taking the car or causing bodily harm to the plaintiff and that he was forced to act the way he acted by the arrogance of the plaintiff. He claimed that his boss had requested the plaintiff to keep one of his cars until the installment was paid because the vehicle in question was not around. At this juncture, the plaintiff became very arrogant and abusive and threatened to kick them out of his compound. This is what provoked the defendant leading to the violence that caused bodily harm to the defendant and the forceful taking away of the Volkswagen Passat.
After listening to the prosecution and the witnesses, the time came for the judge to deliver her five-page judgment. The judge noted that Dempsey had acted illegally by forcefully taking the vehicle belonging to Michael and storming into his compound without permission. This is in contravention of the occupier liability laws on trespass (Gagarin 1999). This, she equated to an ordinary robbery where a thug breaks into a compound and steals property. However, the judge in her review found out that there were valid reasons as to why the defendant acted the way he acted and there is no way he could be charged with robbery with violence. This is because he was acting to protect his financial interests and this could not be taken as a criminal case (Michel, 1995). The judge threw out the criminal charges leveled against the defendant and charged him with three counts of a misdemeanor. The judge ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff 3000 US dollars in compensation for the injuries he suffered during the altercation. After the ruling, there were sighs of relief from the defendant’s side as the plaintiff’s family walked out very dissatisfied with the court’s ruling.
References
Gagarin, M. (1999). Early Law. Berkeley: University of California Press
Garner, Richard. (1997). Law and Society. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gerven, V. et al. (2001). Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Lunney, M. (2003).Tort Law – Texts, Cases New York: Oxford University Press
Michel, F. (1995). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.
Noyes, E. J. Et Al. (2007). International Law Stories: Washington: Foundation Press.
An expert witness is an individual with either specialized skills, knowledge, or training who testifies for the defense or prosecution. Expert testimonies are complex and technical facts presented to the court system when there is no expert knowledge in a court case. Expert testimony is different from other types of testimony (Freckelton, 1996). Expert witnesses cannot be compelled to testify. Besides, expert witnesses are compensated for the services provided.
Expert witnesses can be professional witnesses who have perfected their performance in the court through rehearsals to present their evidence and accomplish the optimal effect. Contrary, normal witnesses do not have incentives for presenting their testimony in favor of either side (defense or prosecution). Like the normal witness, expert witnesses take an oath to present what is true regarding the case (Robertson, & Vignaux, 1995). However, the experts have pressure to make the case favorable to the party instructing them. Due to the pressure, experts may present testimony that is either deliberately false or, though accurate, deceptive by omission.
The first case that was linked to the admissibility of expert evidence was Frye v. the United States, in 1923. In Frye, the court held that for a specific scientific testimony to be admissible as evidence, the testimony should be recognized in the scientific community. The second case was Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, in 1993. In this case, the court held that expert evidence should be based on a reliable footing and applicable to the issue at hand.
The third case was General Electric Company v. Joiner, in 1997. Joiner reinforced the authority of the judge in issues of expert testimony by providing a deferential abuse of discretion standard. The fourth case was that of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, in 1999. The Kumho case expanded the use of Daubert and Joiner guidelines to any expert evidence.
One significant standard addressing the admissibility of evidence is Evidence Rule 702. Evidence Rule 702 presents a guideline for qualifying expert witnesses and eliminating bias in expert testimony. Besides, Rule 702 expresses the need for reliability function against the design rule to balance the necessities of upholding an adversarial system and eliminating bias. The rule prevents judges from using speculations presented by experts because speculation is unreliable.
References
Freckelton, I. (1996). Court experts, assessors, and the public interest. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 18(2), 161-188.
Robertson, B., & Vignaux, G. A. (1995). Interpreting evidence. Butterworths, Durban: John Wiley.
The difference between unified and non-unified models of court systems depends on the difference in the court organization, structure, and regulation. A unified court system can be discussed as ruled with references to the centralized authority, and the cases are filed in one court (Jenkins, 2011, p. 102). On the contrary, the non-unified court system consists of the courts that are usually run separately. The administrative control in this system is decentralized, and the cases can be filed in different courts, without references to the hierarchical jurisdiction (Jenkins, 2011, p. 102).
The advantages of the unified model are in the fact that they are operationally efficient because of the centralized regulation, effective use of resources, and the efficient approach to organizing the court operations. The disadvantages are in the centralized funding which affects the demands of concrete courts (Jenkins, 2011, p. 102). The advantages of the non-unified model are in providing more powers to the local jurisdiction. The disadvantages are in the lower judicial efficiency in comparison with the unified model (Jenkins, 2011, p. 102).
The Florida State Courts System can be discussed as the unified state court system because of unifying the system in the 1970s. The unified system consists of the Florida Supreme Court, District Courts of Appeal, and trial courts. Thus, it is possible to state that the Florida state court system should not be changed or structured under any other model (The Florida State Courts System, 2014). The reason to avoid the changes in the system is in the fact that the unified system is the most efficient one, and it is effectively organized and centralized to use uniform rules and standards.
Court as Public Policy Maker
Court decisions influence state and national policy directly because the court plays the important role in forming policies at several levels while providing the list of errors or weaknesses found in the current policy depending on the concrete case. Thus, court decisions can be discussed as the means to improve the state and national policies while initiating their review (Jenkins, 2011, p. 103).
An example of the situation is Marbury v. Madison (1803). The discussed case is considered not only the basis for developing the judicial review in the USA but also as an example of how court decisions can influence the existing and developing state and national policies. The decision formulated in the court changed not only the approach to similar cases but also contributed to developing new policies associated with the landmark law (Jenkins, 2011, p. 23). One more example is Roe v. Wade (1973) which provoked the debates on the issue of abortion and contributed to changing the national policy to focus more on the aspects of privacy (Jenkins, 2011, p. 302).
The ways to satisfy the public’s interests and change the effects of the court decisions are the public’s focus on the facts that were overlooked or omitted. The next approach is the rise of the national debates on the issue (Jenkins, 2011, p. 302). While focusing on changes in the circumstances of the case, it is also possible to achieve the changes in the court decision if the current decision affects the public significantly.
The example associated with the idea is the consequences of the Roe v. Wade case in the form of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989). The part of the public was against the court decisions associated with Roe v. Wade, and a range of abortion restrictions was supported in 1989 (Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), 2014).
References
Jenkins, J. (2011). The American courts: A procedural approach. Baltimore, MD: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
In several felony trial courts, the clerk of the court is chosen through an election process (Hogan, 2006). Similarly, most of the jurisdictions fill their court administrators through the appointment. In several states, judges are either appointed or chosen through an election process.
Notably, every court is presided over by a chief judge. In this article, the administration of the state of Florida’s felony court system is analyzed. Through this, an analysis of the responsibilities of the positions identified will be highlighted. Similarly, the article will provide more information about how the job performance of each position is evaluated. Additional information about the sources of disagreement between the chief administrators will also be identified.
Chief Judge
In Florida, the court system comprises the Supreme Court, District Courts of Appeal, And the Trial Courts (Das, 2014). A chief judge heads the trial courts in Florida. To be qualified as a judge, an individual ought to be a listed voter and reside in the region. Similarly, the judges ought to have been practicing law in Florida for not less than five years. The judges are chosen through an election process. As such, voters within their jurisdictions elect them into offices.
The elections are free and fair (Hogan, 2006). Nevertheless, whenever a vacancy presents itself before the end of a chosen adjudicator’s term, the position is filled with the help of the judiciary committee. The elected judges preside over their courts for six years. Thereafter, they are required to be vetted by the public through an election. On the election, the public members will decide if the judge fits to be retained in office. Whenever, the members of the public vote against the retention of the judge, the governor is required to appoint another judge to fill the position. The appointed judge is picked from a list prepared by the judicial commission (Hogan, 2006).
The method used by Florida in choosing trial judges is appropriate. Elected judges work without impartiality, unlike the appointed judges. When judges are appointed, they work to fulfill the interest of those who appointed them. However, when the members of the public elect them, they work to meet the public interest.
As the chief administrator of the trial courts, the chief judges play many functions. They interpret the decrees, review the verification presented, and are in charge of how investigations and assessments unfold in their courtrooms. Notably, these judges are independent decision-makers in their courtrooms (Hogan, 2006).
The Judicial Qualifications Commission evaluates the functions of court judges in Florida (Hogan, 2006). The commission appraises cases concerning claimed misbehavior by trial judges or unintentional withdrawal of a jury owing to severe illness. The commission was created by the state’s constitution. As such, the commission operates independently. It is not a part of the state’s judicial system. It functions under the regulations it institutes for itself. The commission has no power over federal adjudicators. Grievances against state adjudicators must be presented to the commission in writing.
The clerk
Other powerful administrators in Florida’s courts are the clerks (Hogan, 2006). The clerks are considered as public officers. They derive their position out of a lawful and fair election. Their duties have been prescribed in the Florida constitution. In Florida, a trial court clerk should have at least a high school diploma or its equivalent. Similarly, the candidate should have over three years of experience in a related area.
The candidates are required to be highly prepared, have knowledge of office technology and its applications, and must be effective communicators (Hogan, 2006). Also, they must be able to relate to the members of the public effectively. Having met the above qualifications, the candidates are chosen for office through an election process. Once elected into the office, Florida trial court clerks served for four years (Hogan, 2006).
Upon their completion of the term, the officers face another election to determine their suitability. The method used by Florida in choosing trial clerks is appropriate. Elected clerks work without impartiality, unlike the appointed clerks. Elected clerks are more efficient because the members of the public will renew their contracts at the end of their terms based on their performance. On the contrary, clerks are appointed they work to fulfill the interest of those who appointed them.
Florida trial court clerks are the guardian of all proceedings and documents filed in the trial courts. They are required to be present at every court session, document accusations, file information, and rulings, process court issues, set up records before the court of appeals, supervise jury selection, collect payments for fines, pay out judicial funds, and oversee the processing of penalties and forfeitures (Hogan, 2006).
Florida Clerk of Courts evaluates the conduct of trial court clerks. The body assesses allegations against the clerks (Hogan, 2006). When necessary the body carries out hearings to determine the alleged misconduct. Possible penalties for misbehavior vary from private warnings to the proposal of removal from the organization.
Based on the above analysis, it is apparent that Florida trial judges and clerks have distinct functions. However, it should be noted that sometimes differences arise between the two administrators (Das, 2014). The differences are largely blamed on personal differences. For instance, a law clerk might be required to advise a judge about a certain case to end a case. On the contrary, the judge might assume that the clerk is incompetent to offer the advice. Through such personal differences, disagreements occur.
References
Das, D. K. (2014). Trends in judiciary: interviews with judges across the globe.. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Hogan, S. O. (2006). The judicial branch of state government people, process, and politics. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Pretrial motion is mainly concerned with a request submitted to a court pleading the court to initiate some actions like ordering the other parties to divulge some information or to dismiss a defective indictment. This research essay deals with various aspects of pretrial motion including pretrial motion to suppress evidence, pretrial motion for speedy trial in detailed manner.
Background
Rule twelve (b) of the “Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” states about the pretrial motions. (Bacigal, 2008, p256). Any request, defense or objections which are competent of resolution devoid of any court proceedings of the common matter may be pleaded at any time before trial by motions. At the discretion of the judge concerned, the pretrial motion may be either in written or by oral.
The following may be raised at any time before the commencement of a trial.
Objections and defenses footed on a deficiency in the institution of prosecution or
Objections and defense are footed on deficiencies in the information or indictment.
Motions to suppress evidence (Bacigal, 2008, p256).
Plea for discovery.
Pleas for a discontinuance or release of defendants or charges. (Bacigal, 2008, p256).
Thus, pretrial motion is mainly concerned with a request submitted to a court pleading the court to initiate some actions like ordering the other parties to divulge some information or to dismiss a defective indictment. Though the counsel should mention the grounds on which the motion is being submitted and the details of relief demanded from the court, counsel is no longer required to differentiate between pleas in bar, pleas in abatement, other antiquated pleas and motion to quash. In contemporary practice, the counsel requires only to differentiate between motions that must be raised before trial starts and motions that may be raised before any time a verdict is pronounced. It will be construed as a waiver of rights if there is a failure to file a pretrial motion at the appropriate time. (Bacigal, 2008, p256).
Before commencing any trial proceeding, many courts place the litigation for a pre-trial hearing or pre-trial conference. In a pre-trial conference, without the presents of clients, only attorneys will attend such hearings. Thus, the attorneys, in the presence of judge, would seek to try to consent on unquestioned issues or facts called stipulations. The use of the map of the accident spot or the time and location of an accident, the sketches of place where murder took place and other points of law are known as stipulations. (Bacigal, 2008, p256).
The main intention of pretrial motion is to reduce the actual time taken for trial without breaching upon the privilege of either party. Without a trial, pre-trial proceedings will help to find a settlement of the case and thus, the main objective of a pre-trial conference is to find a settlement for the case. (Hatch & Hatch, 2006, p.96).
Attorney should make proper demands for discovery and he should respond to the demands made by the other side. Both the defense and prosecutor, under criminal law, have an ongoing obligation and duty to always retort to discovery whenever a new piece of information becomes available. An attorney has to draft pre-trial motions, which need a lot of legal research on the subject. (Hatch & Hatch, 2006, p.85).
For administrative convenience, the attorney should have a calendar for all significant dates which includes dates from the arraignment where the court informs the defendant about the charges, and then the defendant makes a plea until to the actual trial date. Between the pre-trial proceedings and actual date of hearing, there may be hearings for pre-trial proposals for crushing proof from unlawful arrest or a search warrant or for bond reductions, discovery compliance hearings and readiness hearings. (Hatch & Hatch, 2006, p.85).
In U.S.A, if a defendant’s attorney is of the view that the charge has been framed by neglecting the defendant’s privilege, he can make pretrial motions to the court pleading that a specific action has to be granted to safeguard his client. The following will be included in a pretrial motion.
Motions to crush evidence gathered illegally.
Motions for a change in the venue since the defendant may not receive a fair trial in the original jurisdiction.
Just before the commencement of trial, both the defense and the prosecution can present motions. If a request to the prosecution is made to present the evidence available to the defense which the prosecution is intending to initiate at the trial stage, it will be known as a motion for discovery. At the pre-trial stage, the prosecution is also under obligation to hand over any exculpatory corroboration which is also known as evidence that might expose the innocence of the defendant. If a request is made to restrain some evidence like a coerced confession that is either defense or the prosecution is likely to employ throughout trial.
Employing a pre-trial motion to repress proof or evidence
During the pretrial proceedings, a motion to suppress evidence is employed for criminal actions. A defendant can claim relief under Fourth Amendment for safeguard against unwanted seizure and search and under Fifth Amendment for self incrimination and under Fourteenth Amendment, protection for due process. Thus, a motion to suppress is pleading the judge to bar some proof that was gathered inappropriately despite that proof may be highly incriminating and relevant for the case. (Buckles, 2003, p.98).
If the prosecution has engaged in the claiming evidence through an illegal process, then the defendant has the right to object the same. In such scenario, a special procedure is employed to decide on the protest. In such typical non-constitutional admissibility scenario, the objection will be decided during the trial at the very instant when admission is demanded. For example, if the government attorney attempts to put on evidence as to somebody’s out-of-court declaration, it is at that juncture that the defendant refutes. However, rebuttal to evidence on the footing that it was ended in infringement of the Constitution is varying: In most of the states, acceptance of proof or evidence is decided well before the trial even commences by way of pre-trial motion to suppress. Thus, any evidence whose admission is objectionable due to un –Mirandaised confession, through allegedly illegal seizure or search, due to an unduly suggestive show-up or line –up and these are all decided by a suppression motion. (Emanuel.2007, p.375).
A defendant can make protests for pre-trial identifications and lineups. Under the Fifth Amendment, an accused may contest that an identification parade infringes his privilege against self-Incrimination. However, an ordinary voice sample or physical lineup may not be tantamount to against self-incrimination. (Emanuel 2007, p.257).
An accused may contest that an identification parade infringes his right under Sixth Amendment to counsel. During a pre-trial lineup, a defendant has the privilege to have an attorney or counsel. Further, a defendant can also object that a lineup process is against his rights under due process of law. (Emanuel 2007, p.257).
The normal canon is that a pretrial identification is allowable in evidence except the procedure was “so gratuitously suggestive of the defendant’s guiltiness that it resulted in a major likelihood of misidentification as held in Neil v. Biggers. (Bergman & Berman, 2009, p112).
Further, the onus is even greater for defendants in search to suppress a show up identification parade. Unless, there is a major chance of irreparable misidentification, a show up identification is admissible as held in Summons v U.S. (Bergman & Berman, 2009, p112).
Right to have a speedy trial
One of the fundamental principles of the American Criminal Justice system is that an individual is regarded innocent until the proven guilty.
According to Sixth Amendment, in all criminal prosecutions, “the privilege to have a speedy trial rests with the “accused.” In Marion case, the Supreme Court held that once the individual has been formally indicted with a crime based on any evidence, which is enough to offer a basis for bringing the accused to trial. (Herman, 2006, p.214).
Under 18 U.C 3161, a defendant can, under the Federal Speedy Trial Act, can press for a preliminary hearing that should be completed within one month of the time from the date of arrest of the defendant and many states in U.S.A have similar time frames.
In majority cases, judges just approve voluntary agreements between prosecution and defense and if a defendant waives some of his legal rights, in such scenario, the judge will ask the defendant to personally stipulate to a continuance to demonstrate that the defendant is not demanding for a speedy trial. (Bergman & Berman, 2009, p427).
Speedy trial laws demand prosecutors to file charges on those suspects who are in custody within seventy-two hours of arrest. Some states have framed lesser time for filing charge. For instance, under S 825, California demands that charges should be filed within forty-eight hours. (Bergman & Berman 2009, p141).).
The right to the speedy trial was applied against states In Klopfer v.North Carolina. North Carolina State had a law that permitted the prosecutor to defer criminal prosecution indefinitely without dismissal of the indictment. This piece of law permitted the prosecutor to reframe the charges against the accused any time the prosecutor wanted to do though the defendant would not be incarcerated until then. The Supreme Court viewed that this piece of law was unconstitutional in that it infringed defendant’s privilege to a speedy trial as advocated by the Sixth Amendment. (Kusha, 2004, p.20).
In Dicky v Florida, the Supreme Court observed what is tantamount to “speedy” as regards to length of time in any specific jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that since it had taken more than 8 years for the State of Florida to commence trial in spite of the fact that the defendant was in continuous residency in state jurisdiction, it had infringed Dickey’s privilege to have a speedy trial. (Kusha, 2004, p.20).
Rationale
In U.S, a prosecutor cannot deliberate on pretrial silence of a defendant whereas in U.K, a prosecutor can deliberate that accused failed to answer questions during interrogation at the time of trial. (Siegel, p342). Thus, rationale for pretrial motion is to minimise the legal expenses and to make the relief within short frame of time.
Justifications
Rule 12 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides about the pretrial motions. Any request, defense or objections which are competent of resolution without any trial of the general issue may be pleaded at any time before trial by motions.. A defendant can claim relief under Fourth Amendment for safeguard against unwanted seizure and search and under Fifth Amendment for self incrimination and Fourteenth Amendment, protection for due process. Thus, a motion to suppress is pleading the judge to bar some proof that was gathered inappropriately despite that proof may be highly incriminating and relevant for the case. One of the fundamental principles of the American Criminal Justice system is that an individual is regarded innocent until the proven guilty. According to Sixth Amendment, in all criminal prosecutions, “the privilege to have a speedy trial rests with the “accused.”
Thus, pretrial motion, pretrial motion to suppress evidence and pretrial motion for speedy trial are all a boon to the accused in a criminal proceeding as it offers early resolution of the case within a time-frame within minimum legal expenses. It is to be recalled that in Klopfer v.North Carolina. North Carolina State had a law that permitted the prosecutor to defer criminal prosecution indefinitely without dismissal of the indictment. The Supreme Court viewed that this piece of law was unconstitutional in that it infringed defendant’s privilege to a speedy trial as advocated by the Sixth Amendment. (Kusha, 2004, p.20).
References
Basigal, Ronald J. (2008).Criminal Law And Procedure – An Overview. New York: Cengage Learning.
Bergman, Paul & Berman, Sara. (2009). The Criminal Law Handbook. New York. Nolo.
Buckles, Thomas. (2003). Laws of Evidence. New York: Cengage Learnings.
Emanuel, Steven, L. (2007). Criminal Procedure. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Hatch Scott & Hatch, Lisa Zimmer. (2006). Paralegal Careers for Dummies. New York: Dummies.
Herman, Susan N. (2006) The Right to a Speedy and Public Trial. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Kusha, Hamid R. (2004). Defendant’s Right. A Reference Book. New York: CLIO.
In this case, the plaintiff Mr. Schwartz was disqualified from managing a corporation because he was convicted of an offense that involved dishonesty, which is punishable by a minimum of three months imprisonment. The law disqualifies such persons from managing corporations (Gobert & Punch 2003). Mr. Schwartz pleaded guilty to five charges which included receiving payments of youth allowance from the center link, which he was not entitled to. He had under-declared his employment income and received income that was exempted from tax assessment. He also obtained social security payments to which he was not entitled. His status did not anywhere come close to the category of those who needed social security.
The amount he obtained from dishonestly amounted to $ 13,578.94 and he was placed on two good behavior bonds with $ 600 recognizance under the crime act. The offenses were noted after data matching was done between the center link and the Australian taxation office. Mr. Schwartz’s offenses were said to relate to his earlier period of life and the evidence before the court showed that he had repaid the debt to center link and had undertaken to counsel. The period of disqualification was to start the day Mr. Schwartz was convicted and was to last for 5 years after that day. The corporation act provided him with an opportunity to apply to the court for leave to manage the Baby Belle Company provided he was not disqualified by ASIC. ASIC was provided with the notice of the application and it advised the Federal Court of Australia that it did not oppose the application; neither did it propose to attend the hearing of the application.
Analysis
The Court applied principles that required the applicant to gratify the Court that it should make an exception to the legislative policy underlying the prohibition (Michalowski & Kramer 2006). It applied the principle of legislative policy, which has the objective of protecting the public and not punishing the offender (Benson & Cullen1998). Its other objectives were to deter others from engaging in similar conduct as well as deter them from abusing the corporate structure to the disadvantage of those dealing with a company like investors, creditors, and shareholders (Schlegel & Weisburd 1994).
The other principle that the court applied is that of hardship and granting of leave. According to this principle, hardship alone is not enough to justify granting of leaves (Simpson 2002). Another argument was that the corporation had grown due to the hard work and dedication of Mr. Schwartz; hence it was not logical to receive such harsh punishments. The independent evidence of Mr. Goodman described the applicant as well mannered, hardworking and successful candidate. This evidence raised concerns about whether the applicant was running the company in line with the provisions of the Corporations Act. The court had to consider the assessment of risks to those who would deal with the plaintiff when assuming the role of a director.
Conclusion
The application was dismissed since the court was neither required nor able to resolve the issue. The role of Mr. Goodman to the company was not clear and so was how the company was operated. Nonetheless, the case remains open for Mr. Schwartz to make a fresh application in case enough evidence is available, as provided for in the law (Salinger 2005).
Reference List
Benson, M. & Cullen, F. (1998) Combating corporate crime: local prosecutors at work. New York. UPNE.
Gobert, J. & Punch, M. (2003) Rethinking corporate crime. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Michalowski, R. & Kramer, R. (2006) State-corporate crime: wrongdoing at the intersection of business and government. Chicago. Rutgers University Press.
Salinger, L. (2005) Encyclopedia of white-collar & corporate crime. Chicago. SAGE.
Schlegel, K. & Weisburd, D. (1994) White-Collar Crime Reconsidered. New York. UPNE.
Simpson, S. (2002) Corporate crime, law, and social control. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.