A BOOK ON U.S. APPLICABLE LAW
Deacon San Nguyen
THE UNITED STATES COURT TRIAL SYSTEM AND THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
In the US, there are two official systems: Court Trial System and organization of the Federal and State Courts, which are very complicated and multifarious because they consist of many regional courts at the district, county and city level. Besides, the court trial system and the organization of courts in one state are sometimes different from those in other state, while the Federal Court trial systems and organizations remain unanimous throughout the United States.
We will step by step present the Federal Court Trial Systems and the organization of courts.
I. THE COURT TRIAL SYSTEM
1. The Jurisdiction
The court is one of the civil rights established by the federal and state government to help seek resolution of a legal contest by judicial process.
Legal disputes arisen from different opinions between two or more parties will be solved at court. For example, driver A ran red light and hit driver B but still thought he was not at fault because the traffic light was green at the time. Another example where a suspect in a robbery case has a twin brother and the twins are as like as two peas in a pod, creating an error of judgment in deciding who the real robber is. Thus, it is the court that decides to deliver a sentence to the guilty or convicted parties in the above-mentioned examples.
Court thus plays a very important role in the society for the adjudication of guilty or not guilty based on evidence that constitutes an offense.
Occasionally, there are court judgments that have more publicly psychological impact than on the parties in a case. Let take some events that well illustrate this. First, in 1965 in Iowa State, three high school students were suspended for three days for having worn a black band on their arm to protest against the Viet Nam war. The students sued the school. The Supreme Court of Iowa state ruled that the school had violated the right to unfold their personal opinions granted by the United States Constitutional Law and consequently ordered the school board to withdraw its suspension and allow the three students to return to school. Another case: in Kansas State, a student’s parents sued the Topeka city’s school district regarding its decision to order black students to attend a different school. The court pronounced that the school decision had violated the United States constitution.
It is the federal governing system that divides power and responsibilities between federal and state government. The federal government responsibilities include protection of the United States and supervision of the national properties while the fifty-state government does its own responsibilities. It is the federal court responsibilities to solve disputes concerning the constitution and federal laws. The state courts must adjudicate on legal problems in compliance with their own constitution and laws but not incompatible with the spirit of the United States constitution and laws.
The United States have 94 district courts which are below the 12 Regional Circuit courts of the United States. If a party loses his case in a United States District court, he is allowed to appeal to the Regional Circuit for review.
The highest court in the judicial branch of the U.S. government is the Supreme Court of the United States sitting in Washington, the capital of the U.S. A case which was lost in a US District Court could be appealed to a Regional Circuit, and if the Regional Circuit upholds the decision of the District Court, the case still could once more be brought to the US Supreme Court for review.
However, rarely does the US Supreme Court hear a case that has previously been decided by a Regional Circuit.
2. Civil and Criminal Law
Many of us pay little attention to the difference between a criminal case and civil case.
A case is brought before the criminal court when one or more than one person is prosecuted by the government for criminal acts against an individual or the populace in the society. A criminal defendant must be determined guilty by a jury before he is brought before the court for trial, and once the offender has been sentenced, he will be given a penalty as a fine, imprisonment or suspension.
There are some criminal cases with only criminals but no victims, for example, the federal government prosecutes those who are on charges of being a spy, likewise, state government can arrest and charge drivers with drunken driving.
A case is brought before a civil court when two or more people, companies or institutions take legal action against one another for a breach of a binding promise or failure to fulfill a legal responsibility. Even a failure to exercise the degree of expected care is enough to constitute a negligence act which might incur an obligation for damages. For example, a neighbor of yours carelessly threw a banana skin on the pavement in front of his house which resulted in your stepping on it and fell, breaking your hip and you were consequently hospitalized. You may sue the neighbor before a civil court for monetary damages for his negligence. If the neighbor loses the case, neither will he be imprisoned nor fined, but is ordered to pay for your medical expenses. Let take another example of a civil case for a breach of construction contract: A lumber store pledged to supply wood for a construction company with a special price but failed to honor its pledge, resulting in the construction company having to purchase wood from another store with a much higher price for its construction work, then sued the lumber store for monetary damages.
3. The Federal and State Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear a controversy or dispute, therefore, we should know what cases are brought to and adjudicated by state courts, which are the judicial system that play a very important role in operating and enforcing the laws.
In reality, the greater part of litigations is tried at state courts which do the most known public relations. 90% of the population going to state courts as plaintiffs, defendant, witnesses or jurors, and only 10% going to federal courts mostly in robbery, assault and battery and traffic offenses cases.
State courts have unlimited jurisdiction prescribed by both the US and state constitutions, therefore state courts tend to litigate almost all cases that arise in their states. In recent years, it is estimated that around 29 million cases have been adjudicated yearly in state courts, excluding traffic and illegal parking offenses, while only more than one million cases, half of which involving bankruptcy, have been litigated in federal courts and only one tenth of those has been minor criminal cases. Consequently, there is a great difference between the two judicial systems: around 30 thousand state judges compared with nearly 1500 federal judges including US magistrates.
Federal courts have no broad jurisdiction as do state courts. The US constitution therefore limits the jurisdictions over which federal courts have. For example, federal courts only have jurisdiction on disputes in which a party is the US government, or on cases involving acts of violation of the US constitution and federal laws, or when concerned parties are foreign diplomats. Federal courts are also given jurisdiction over a number of special suits involving bankruptcy or disputes on sea accidents. Federal courts can hear cases where parties are from different states, based on basic legal principles of those states. There are situations where claims may be requested by both parties to be litigated in either a federal or state court, however, such occasions are rare. Most of the cases heard by federal courts are more civil than criminal: worker sues company for refusing his employment based on the basis of sex; or denying his social security benefits which he thinks he is qualified for. Civil disputes may consist of cases where some federal administrative agencies are sued for failures to protect the population from environmental pollution.
The US constitution grants the authorities to state courts to try most of their criminal acts, for example, robberies are criminal acts while not many federal laws consider bank robberies felonies.
Federal courts also handle bankruptcy cases particularly tried by bankruptcy judges. In many bankruptcy cases, debtors do not have to pay any money to creditors because they have no abilities to pay their debts, and consequently can do their fresh start.
Though total cases tried by federal courts are far less than those tried by state courts, however, they carry greater psychological weight all over the country and sometimes excite world-wide interest.
4. Procedural complaint and trial
A civil case arises when an individual files a complaint at the office of the court clerk. The complaint states the specific injury suffered by the plaintiff who is the party instituting a legal action or claim, and the party against whom a civil action is brought is the defendant.
The next step in a civil action is the preparation of an answer responded by the defendant. Then the series of written claims made by both parties are called pleadings. However, steps in a criminal procedure are very complicated and expensive. A US attorney known as a public prosecutor, or an assistant Attorney who represents the US government is to present all facts to the Federal Grand Jury to justify that the defendant is guilty, at this time the defendant might have been arrested or not yet prosecuted. Sometimes, the prosecuting attorney has to persuade the Grand Jury that the defendant is guilty, which must be officially publicized, and if the Jury agrees it will sign an indictment to officially accuse the defendant.
It should be noted that there are two types of jury: Grand Jury and Petit Jury. A Grand Jury examines accusations and discuss whether a defendant is guilty or not, and if the defendant is found guilty, then the Grand Jury signs an indictment to start legal proceeding against him. A Petit Jury directly participates in trials to hear evidence and accusations presented, therefore a petit jury is also called a trial jury. A petit jury has from 6 to 12 persons and a grand jury has from 16 to 23 persons.
After a grand jury has signed an indictment to charge a defendant, the arrest warrant is immediately issued if he is in hiding. Next, the US attorney makes arrangement for the defendant to be brought before a judge to hear the charges and to plead guilty or not guilty. In case the defendant denies the crime charged as arraigned in the indictment, he will be tried at the next trial scheduled by the judge.
Most of the crimes charged by a grand jury are felonies while misdemeanors are crimes that carry a less severe punishment are prosecuted by a US attorney and do not need an indictment from the grand jury. State courts have jurisdiction over some crimes such as disturbing the public order and federal courts have jurisdiction over traffic accidents on federal freeway or violation on federal parks.
Many lawsuits never go to trial for a hearing. When the pleadings and evidence are sufficient, the judge does not need to arrange a trial but enters a summary judgment or decides to dismiss the complaint. Therefore, there are nine out of ten civil cases where the parties mutually agree to terminate the suit. In many criminal cases, the defendants tend to admit an accusation rather than denying it for fear that they have to answer hard questions made by the judge or the district attorney.
The main purpose of criminal trials is to find out whether the offense written in the indictment is justifiable. Disputes of people interests are solved in civil cases to make sure legal principles are respected.
If a case cannot be settled by mutual agreement, and if the criminal defendant denies committing the crime charged, then the judge will arrange a next trial to adjudicate the case and the defendant has a right to a jury trial. It should be noticed that after the jury has indicted (deciding a defendant guilty or not guilty), it is the judge’s authority to give a light or heavy sentence. If the defendant decides to have a non-jury trial called the bench trial, it is the authority of the judge to decide the case, to give a light or heavy sentence or even a judgment of acquittal. In a jury trial, before it retires to discuss (to deliberate) the case in secret to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to addict the defendant, all the jurors have been explained with details by the judge about the law to be applied to the case. For example, the judge will explain to the jury that the defendant in a store robbery with an unloaded gun or a loaded gun bears the same legal consequence, but the jury is to discuss whether it was that defendant that robbed the store and the said gun was the gun he used in the robbery.
It is believed that the US courts are using the most effective method to discover the truth in a case called the adversary process where the parties argues by presenting their best facts and most convincing reasons to direct the judge or jury toward thoroughly understanding the truth of their case and seeing the wrong arguments of the adversary.
The judge or the jury will focus on obvious evidence to solve the case through physical evidence or testimonial evidence provided by witnesses. It should be noticed that the jury’s indictment only serves as an initiative to bring a defendant before the court but it does not indicate that the defendant has been accused of the crime, because the defendant might be acquitted due to lack of obvious evidence. The jury verdict traditionally requires the unanimous agreement of the twelve members but only one juror votes against the decision, then the judge will declare the jury verdict is a mistrial and order a new trial with a new jury.
In civil cases, the jury uses a preponderance of the evidence to support arguments presented by the plaintiff against his/her opponent.
II. THE SYSTEM OF ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE US COURTS
1. The Independent Rulings of the Judge
A judge is vested with four main duties in a trial: a) presiding and ruling on issues occurring during the trial; b) deciding evidence brought by the parties to be illegal and therefore are not permitted to apply in the case; c) interpreting and instructing the jury concerning the law of the case; d) rendering judgment in a bench trial (non jury) after hearing both parties.
Judges in the federal judiciary are appointed by the US President with the advice and consent of the Senate, while most state judges are selected through public election for a specified period of time. Most of the appointed judges are ex-lawyers and a few of whom are state judges or US District attorneys or even deans or professors at famous Law Schools. Appointed judges who were ex-lawyers are not allowed to continue practicing law. A judge should be cautious in dealing with people and should not engage in political, campaign or fund raising activities for communities, political parties or even individuals to maintain the consistency with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary.
It has been known that most of the US Presidents appoint federal judges from their same Democratic or Republican parties. The US Department of Justice and the American Bar Association have the duties to examine and investigate the professional abilities as well as the decent conducts of the appointees before they are nominated and approved by the Senate.
Generally, Federal judges retire between the ages of 65 and 70 and still have their annual salary while in retirement till death because retired judges till have the authority to deliver judgments of the courts. The US constitution determines that federal judges hold their offices during good behavior. Judges charged with treason against the US, felony or other crimes might be removed from office after thorough investigation of the congress, however, such removals have rarely happened in the history of the US judicial system.
It is defined by the Article III of the US Constitution that federal judges’ salary shall not be diminished after they have retired. Consequently, they can’t be dismissed as the result of their judgments that might be much to the displeasure of the President or the Congress. Due to this absolute independence of judges’ rulings, there were lawful practices ruled unconstitutionally by the US Supreme court in Brown v/s Board of Education where racial segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. This ruling dissatisfied the predominant race in the country and there were a number of congressmen, congresswomen expressed their wish to replace the Supreme Court who had ruled that practice unsuccessfully thanks to the independently judicial decisions made by judges in legal cases.
2. The Legal Procedures in Federal Courts
At federal courts the magistrates are to assist US district judges in getting cases ready for trial, who may decide some criminal and civil trials when both parties agree to have the case heard by a magistrate instead of waiting for the case to be tried by a judge at federal courts.
In the court room next to the place where witnesses sit is the jury box. The grand jury cannot be seen in a courtroom because it always retires to a private room to consider the case to avoid pressures that might influence its final decision. The US Constitution guarantees litigants a right to a jury trial in criminal and civil cases. In federal courts, a criminal trial jury typically consists of 12 jurors who listen to the facts and present their decision; however, in a civil case sometimes there are only six jurors. There are alternate jurors to guard against the possibility that one of the jurors takes ill or for any reasons is unable to serve.
In a courtroom, lawyers of both parties sit at a large table facing the presiding judge. A lawyer represents his or her clients in legal proceedings. In criminal cases, prosecuted at federal courts, a US Attorney represents the government in litigation and is appointed by the US President with the consent of the US Senate. Below a US attorney there are a number of assistants US attorney.
The US Constitution guarantees defendants in criminal cases the right to have a lawyer appointed free if they cannot afford to hire one. There are cases where defendants refuse assistance from government-funded legal aid to defend themselves.
Witness is a person in a law court who states what he or she knows about a legal case. Lawyer for defendant or plaintiff has the right to ask the judge to allow them to question witnesses to clarify the trustworthiness of the evidence provided.
The courtroom deputy or courtroom clerk is responsible for calling on witnesses and having them swear to speak the truth, recording exhibits by both parties and keeping the courtroom in order. Courtroom clerk is recruited by the Court Clerk Office. The US Court Clerk is appointed by judges and does their duties under the chief judge. This officer is responsible for managing personnel in the office and filing all court papers such as complaints and summons turned in by both parties’ lawyers.
The court reporter sitting next to the courtroom clerk is responsible for making a complete and accurate verbatim record of every word spoken during a trial, taken down by stenography. Lawyers for defendant and plaintiff have the right to request the court reporter to produce all those records.
Before a case is brought to the court, most of the civil cases are referred to the Court Clerk Office for the judge to order a conference with lawyers from both parties to formally decide which issues will be discussed and which are not allowed to be asserted during the trial. The fact that who will be the witnesses and what evidence will be presented is to be brought to the judge. Thanks to this procedure called the pretrial conferences, the defendant’s and plaintiff’s lawyers have an extensive opportunity to discover more necessary facts and evidence relevant to the litigation. The pretrial conferences have sometimes consequently helped some lawsuits being terminated before trial by the parties’ mutual agreement to dismiss them, thus save the parties a lot of money and time.
A lawyer in a criminal case is to spend a good amount of time studying the case prior to the trial. The lawyer needs to know what evidences the district attorney will use to prosecute and accuse his/her client. The US Constitution 4th amendment guarantees people the right to be secure in their houses and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to protect this right, the US Supreme court ruled that seizures of any exhibits without due process of law are illegal. For example, when the police search a defendant’s home and seize some exhibits without a valid search warrant issued by the court, then the defendant’s lawyer may require the court to rule that those exhibits are invalid and therefore cannot be accepted.
A. THE JURY
Selecting a jury is an important issue. When a lawsuit is filed and if either party in the case demands a jury trial then the court is to start the procedure of selection the jury. The citizens that are qualified to be selected to serve as jurors have to go through an administrative in pursuance of the establishment of the US Constitution law that grants the US citizens the right to demand a jury trial, and determine the duties of a jury.
The court constructs the list of potential jurors from the roll of registered voters, licensed drivers who are randomly summoned to appear for jury duty. Upon summoned, a potential juror is to appear on the date and time as scheduled on the summons.
Before a case is brought to the court, the judge and lawyers agree to select a jury by asking the jurors a series of questions to find which potential jurors might have knowledge to make good sense to reach a just decision. The judge may excuse any jurors who he thinks might have associations, either with the defendant or plaintiff that might bias their judgment. Typically the lawyers also have some peremptory challenges allowing them to remove jurors without having to give a reason.
To start the trial, lawyers from both sides present the main facts of the case to the jury then try to speak eloquently to persuade the jury to vote for their client. After the fact presentation of both sides, comes the evidence production phase. First, the district attorney or the plaintiff’s lawyer questions the witnesses that they themselves brought before the court called the direct examination followed by the cross examination where the defendant’s lawyer checks or discredit the testimony testified by the plaintiff’s witnesses.
B. THE EVIDENCE
During the process of questioning witnesses made by both sides in court, documents such as bank notes, exhibits, guns… are presented as proof of the lawyers’ presentation. However, there are some legal procedures that determine what evidence is allowed to be presented and what is banned. For example, the US Supreme Court ruled that forcible evidence against a defendant given by police is unacceptable. Similarly, statements spoken by a third party cannot be used as evidence against a defendant, for example, a witness testified in court that someone else had told the witness that he had seen the defendant robbing the bank, of course, this testimony is invalid and unacceptable.
The plaintiff’s lawyer sometimes provides unapproved evidence that he thinks could psychologically affect the jury in order to indirectly persuade it to vote for his client, which prompts opposing response from the defendant’s lawyer by demanding the court to ban the other side from producing such evidence. However, the judge may take the defendant’s objections or he may reject them and allows the plaintiff’s lawyer to continue questioning the witnesses.
The judge and the lawyers from both sides at times are seen to engage in discussion right in the courtroom with the presence of the court reporter who records all the details of the discussion that will be included in the transcript of the case. Lawyers from both sides may meet in the judge’s office to discuss what evidence presented in court will be admitted. This practice is to keep the jury from knowing the content of the discussion for fear that it might bias the jurors against the accused.
After the witness questioning conduct is completed, lawyers from both sides start summing up the main points of the case. Next, the judge instructs the jury concerning the law relating to the case and provides guidance in reaching a verdict. Then the jury retires to a private room to discuss the case to render a verdict about whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. A verdict in a criminal case requires a unanimous agreement. In a civil case, the same unanimity of agreement is required, except in a particular case, both sides agreed a non-unanimous verdict prior to the trial.
C. JURORS
Fulfilling the duty of a juror means a citizen has a chance to directly participate in the machinery of the government, and therefore makes an important contribution to the judicial system of the United States.
In criminal cases in a federal court, after a defendant has been found guilty, the judge will decide a trial to deliver a light or heavy sentence based on the crime he has committed. Imposing a sentence is the sole authority of the trying just, not the jury whose duty is to decide whether an accused is guilty or not guilty. The judge looks for guidance to his decision in prior cases that had similar facts known as stare decisis. In a civil case if the plaintiff wins, the judge orders the defendant to pay damages to him, but if the defendant wins, the judge does not have to issue any judgment ordering the plaintiff to do anything.
D. APPEALING AND THE US COURTS OF APPEALS
After the defendant in a criminal case was found guilty and the judge imposed the sentence, the defendant may appeal the case to a higher court, the court of appeals for a retrial. In a civil case, the same proceeding is applied: the losing party may have the right of appeal. When doing the appeal, the losing party is to point out the errors made by the lower court, for instant, improperly accepting the evidence presented by the plaintiff, or its misinterpretation of the applying law. In a criminal case if the defendant is acquitted he cannot be tried again for the same crime. However, once a criminal defendant has made a confession of his crime, this will invalidate his right of appeal. In a settled civil case out of court, there is no need for a retrial.
E.LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN US COURTS OF APPEALS
A law prescribes that demonstrations within 500 feet from foreign embassies are strictly forbidden but one day, there was a group of six people assembling at a place near an embassy of a country to collect passers-by’s signatures for a petition against human rights violations in that country.
The police immediately responded by arresting those six demonstrators then prosecuted them in a court of law for a federal misdemeanor. In the court they testified that they had gathered farther than 500 feet from the Embassy, but the policemen that had arrested them confirmed that the demonstrators were within the forbidden distance. Because this was a jury trial, the defense lawyers asked that the jury, before it retired to its private room for deliberation, be explained by the judge that the act of their asking passers-by to put their names to the petition could not be considered an act of demonstrating, therefore, they could not be prosecuted for having violated the said demonstration forbidding law. The defense lawyers also argued that even the act of collecting signatures for a petition was accused as an act of demonstrating, the first Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the Congress to judge it an illegal act and asked the court to dismiss the district attorney’s prosecution against their clients. Both arguments of the defense lawyers were rejected by the court that maintained the collection of the signatures an act of demonstrating, and decided the case must go to trial. The court confirmed that the law forbidding demonstration did not violate the US Constitution, then referred to prior cases that had similar facts to issue the judgment.
The jury just followed the judge’s explanation and guidance then retired to its private room to deliberate and render a guilty verdict. The defendants appealed to the US court of appeals, and it was possible that the court of appeals agreed with the jury’s decision that the demonstration had assembled within the distance of 500 feet from the Embassy but ruled that the lower court had misinterpreted the law because the previous legislators had had no intention to forbid people’s signing a petition. With such judgment, the court of appeals did not need to focus on the unconstitutionality of the law but on the fact that whether the assembly of those protestors outside the Embassy was really a demonstration.
If the court of appeals ruled that the lower court had misinterpreted the law, it could dismiss the case decided by this court then deliver a new judgment to the defendants but rarely did such a happen as most of the time, the higher court would confirm the lower court’s judgment. The higher court could, after considering the case, send it back to the first court for a retrial.
The Miranda case in Arizona, for example, where a defendant was found guilty of murder and his confession of his crime to the police was the concrete evidence to accuse him in the court. The Supreme Court ruled that the confession had not been made in accordance with the legal principles, therefore it could not be used as evidence against him on the grounds that he had not been aware that he had the right to remain silent and to have his own lawyer with him while being investigated by police.
Each court of appeals usually hears cases consisting of a panel of at least three judges. To deliver a judgment the judges are to study all documents used by the lower court along with transcripts in which accurate records of all the trials from the lower court are registered. The court can call an oral argument between lawyers from both sides where they present their arguments within a limited period of time allowed by the court in front of the judges who question them about what laws to be used in the case. After the panel have studied their pleas and heard their presentation, the judges discuss the case at bar, consult case law concerning prior cases that had similar facts then deliver the final judgment. To reach the final judgment, there should be two of the three judges all agreed, and either of these judges is to write a report explaining the reasons to support their agreement. Even the judge that does not agree with these two judges may write another report explaining his disagreement. It is these reports of judicial arguments presented at trials later become case law that provides for consistency in the application of common law
F. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE US SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. All of its judgments, rules and trials regarding appeal cases from all federal and state courts are strictly cried out.
Different from the US Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court does not review all appeal cases brought from lower courts but has the full authority to decide what cases need to be retried. It is the responsibility of the court of appeals, not the Supreme Court, to correct errors that occurred in lower courts. The chief function of the Supreme Court is to issue directives to clarify the meaning of laws in cases where lower courts disagreed in applying and interpretation the US Constitution Law and federal laws.
The Supreme Court normally reviews fewer than 200 cases each year of more than 6000 request for review.
