Bench Trial And Judicial Discretion

In Business Insider article “This is Why Juries Shouldn’t Decide Court Cases” Erin Fuchs argues that court cases in the US shouldn’t be resolved by Juries. Erin Fuchs is completely correct. Cases should not be solved by bias and inexperienced and unwillingness people in law. In the article Professor Peter Van Koppen compared jurors to unequipped people acting as your doctors. In his 2009 essay it states “you wouldn’t want a panel of lay people acting as doctors.” This comparison makes a lot of sense. If you were a “criminal” and you had a case that meant life or death, would you want some bias and not prepared random people off the streets choosing if you are going to die or live? Some horrible criminals get big breaks because some unprepared

Before we can delve into the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent, each element must be explored individually. Unlike legislation and statue which most times speak to hypothetical situations, judicial precedent is a response to real situation and as such there is a foundation of pragmatism which holds the principle together. As it relates to certainty, the law is established in such a way that it is possible to predict what a decision will be and plan accordingly. There is a sense of security in this element of judicial precedence because once a legal rule has been established it is binding and cannot changed by a later or lower court, individuals can therefore adjust their behavior with regard to the legal rule.

Definition: the power vested in an appellate court to review/revise the decision of a lower court

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

The political cartoon analyzes the branches of government using football as a metaphor to show checks and balances that limit the power of the government. Furthermore, checks and balances work for the U.S. government because powers are delegated to each branch and the checks allow for equity among the branches. In the cartoon, the legislative branch and the executive branch are playing against each other while the judicial branch is the referee. In document one, Congress has the power to write laws, but the president can veto the bills that Congress proposes. Thus, the powers balance out the branches’ powers, which keeps them in a tight line of what they are allowed to do. Also, the President appoints judges, but Congress can reject them. They

an explanation of why and how each decision was made throughout the entire trial. The basis

Together with, the Constitution of the United States likewise designed a strong government by establishing a national court system. This helped the government become more secure by having equal justice under law for every citizen including the president. In the document Powers of the Federal it presents the judicial powers and the supreme court. It states, “this branch interprets and ruled the actions of the other branches” (Document 2). This shows that the judicial branch has the ability to run each case according to the law it violated, without the influence of outside factors. Founding a national court system preserved and interpreted the law. Also, this demonstrates that having a court system help the government by equivalent laws enforce

The concept of Judicial Review is to review cases using the power of the courts over the actions of the executive and legislative branches to deem them invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a unique position because of its broad commitment to the American People and its Constitution. The Court's principles on judicial review are that The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, they have ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and they must vote against any law that clashes with the constitution. One of the most significant cases that brought forth such convictions was the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was a case that brought many complications because when Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James

Judicial Review is one of the court's most important powers and arguably the most powerful one that this branch or any branch has. This is a power that allows the supreme court to make legislative and executive actions subject to review and possible invalidation. The power of Judicial Review was earned in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison. In this case it was decided that James Madison’s decisions to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace was unconstitutional, this has extended the power and now created what is known as judicial review. This has continued to affect laws and acts presently such as in the case of United States v. Nixon when Nixon was denied the powers of absolute executive privilege due to

In today’s society of law it is preferable to have a jury trial than a bench trial. For many reasons a jury trial is preferable than a bench trial because there are 12 mind's that decide if the defendant is guilty or not. The defendant only needs one juror to save their life because it would be a hung jury. The jurors need to be 12 to zero to have the defendant guilty or not guilty. It is easier to have a jury a trial than a bench trial because in a bench trial the defendant has to look like they did the crime while in a jury trial 12 jurors are hearing the testimony and they could decide from there if the defendant is guilty or not. All the jurors need is a reasonable doubt to say the defendant is not guilty while the bench trial the judge

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

A Trial Chamber enjoys broad discretion in determining a sentence. The sentence must be determined by weighing and balancing all the relevant factors. The weight given to an individual factor and the balancing of all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence is at the core of a Trial Chamber’s exercise of discretion. However, a Trial Chamber’s failure to consider one of the mandatory factors listed in rule 145 (1) (b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence can amount to a legal error in the context of challenging the Trial Chamber’s discretionary decision on sentencing.

It is the right of the jury to judge what the facts are, what the law

Judicial restraint encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. Judicial activism is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the application law or they act like a legislative court instead of a traditional court. The difference is judicial restraint refers to the doctrine that judges' own philosophies or policy preferences should not be injected into the law while judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively reinterpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws. Impact of social and political environment for judicial restraint is when Gibbons vs. Ogden, the Supreme Court held the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the commerce