Chapter 3 Case Study Hamilton County Essay

On the surface, it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Dynamic Court view. The final, and youngest, take on court power combines aspects of the Constrained and Dynamic views into what I shall call the Condition Dependent Court view of power.

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

The California judicial system and the United States federal system are different but comparable. Consequently, both the California and the United States federal judicial system handle different types of cases. Essentially, California handles cases that deal with 1) state courts 2) civil cases and 3) criminal cases. On the other hand, the United States federal system handle cases that deal with 1) the Constitution, 2) laws that are passed through congress and 3) cases in which the United States is a party. In spite of the fact that the California system and the United States federal system are different yet comparable, this paper will address both court systems concluding with the United States federal system being superior to the California system.

verdict based on the facts of the case. One judge is allowed in this type of trial. These courts are

The state trial courts of general jurisdiction are the district courts. The district court has exclusive jurisdiction on felony cases, as well as divorce cases, cases involving title to land, and election contest cases. It shares jurisdiction with the county courts, and in some case justice of the peace courts, for civil cases the lowest limit for hearing a case is a mere $200 in controversy, while in Justice of the Peace courts can hear cases up to $5,000. In a "catchall" provision it hears all cases in which jurisdiction is not placed in another trial court.

While I accept that theoretically a judge should not consider extralegal factors when making a ruling, I cannot accept your premise that all judges rule as neutral arbiters who rely solely on precedent, Constitutional text, and original intent of the Framers. As with any other individual in public service, judges are still human beings, and thus bring with them their own prejudices, personal biases, and preconceived notions when taking the bench.

The judge selection process in the USA today differs from one state to the other. Each state has its defined procedures to select and dismiss a judge from service. However, some of the States share the guidelines in choosing judges. Another common thing in the selection process is that all judges serve for a period of time upon which one is supposed to be elected to serve in the judiciary for another term. In this paper, the main focus is the selection process of the judge in Tennessee State. It also evaluates the similarities and differences between Tennessee State selection processes against Texas State.

This section addresses the accuracy of each judge by ranking them according to their appeals first and reversals second by court. A ranking of 1 is reserved for a judge with the fewest errors in disposing cases. A. Common Pleas Court % Appealed Ralph Winkler Timothy Hogan Patrick Dinkelacker Thomas Crush Arthur Ney Jr. William Morrissey William Mathews Thomas Nurre Ann Marie Tracey Robert Kraft Richard Niehaus John O'Connor Norbert Nadel Fred Cartolano Robert Ruehlman J. Howard Sundermann Jr. 2.85% 3.07% 3.50% 3.53% 3.88% 3.99% 4.02% 4.03% 4.04% 4.05% 4.09% 4.34% 4.43% 4.51% 4.52% 6.28% Reversal by % Reversedappeal 0.19% 0.36% 0.64% 0.30% 0.43% 0.73% 0.80% 0.20% 0.41% 0.22% 0.48% 0.40% 0.68% 0.40% 0.56% 1.05% 6.82% 11.67% 18.18% 8.40% 11.20% 18.18% 19.78% 4.96% 10.24% 5.51% 11.68% 9.30% 15.27% 8.76% 12.41% 16.67% Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

In today’s modern Texan judicial system, traditional fears of centralization that stem from 19th century Reconstruction are no longer appropriate. The demands of population growth place an incredible strain on the highly traditional, decentralized judicial system currently in use, creating massive caseloads and backlogs. These backlogs represent a central problem with the current judicial system, as one of the paramount concerns when it comes to proper dispensation of justice is efficiency and timeliness. In reducing the number of courts and concentrating power, the judicial system reduces jurisdiction overlap, streamlines the judicial process to avoid the problem of having multiple courts within a single trial court, and creates a system that is more conducive to the public’s understanding and interest of the Texas

The federal court system consists of three levels. The leading and nethermost is the United States district courts. Secondly, the middle level is the court of appeals. The Supreme Court is reflected as the uppermost law court in the United States. The United States district courts comprise of the ordinary federal provisional courts, even though in many circumstances the legislature has approved acts that dissuade unusual authority to these particular courts or executive law juries. The Courts of Appeals are the state middle appellate law court. They function under an organization of obligatory appraisal which implies they are obligated to hear all the appeals of right from the subordinate courts. Courts of appeals can make an own presiding of their own on the case, or decide to agree the verdict of the lower court. In the last circumstance, several offenders choose to appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court is the utmost court in the United States judicial system, this is seen the court that is in charge of the final remedy. It commonly is an appellate law court that functions in unrestricted appraisal. This implies that the Court, via surrendering of summonses of certiori, has the power to choose which cases to hear and the one to dismiss. There exist no rights of appeal to the Supreme Court (Haerens, 2010).

The data that were analyzed for the cases heard in the: common pleas, domestic relations, and municipal courts were rather interesting. In fact, the table below depicts the fact that an appeal in the common pleas court was vastly more likely to happen that in the domestic relations or municipal courts. The common pleas court had just over 4% of its cases appealed which was in stark contrast to the domestic relations appeals which had only 0.35% and the municipal appeals which was at 0.46% appealed.

The purpose of the article is to examine the issues with data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing that has been strengthened to include information on sentencing judges and criminal court contexts, and it argues that the mode of conviction shapes the focus of sentencing discretion in ways that systematically underestimate judge effects for pooled estimates of incarceration and sentence length (Johnson, p. 159). Research that focuses on the effects of judicial background characteristics suggest minimal influence based on race or gender of the sentencing judge in criminal cases. The possibilities

The author would have to say that the statistics coupled with the creation of the United States Sentencing Committee reveal that judicial discretion was at a much higher level prior to 1984, and has been on a decline as legislature has begun to regulate the discretion in which judges having in regard to sentencing in criminal cases. “Anderson, Kling, and Smith (1999) investigated 77,201 criminal cases decided between

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.

The purpose of the newspaper’s study was to evaluate the performance of the judges. Appeals are often the result of mistakes made by judges, and the newspaper wanted to know which judges were doing a good job and which were making too many mistakes. You are called in to assist in the data analysis. Use your knowledge of probability and conditional probability to help with the ranking of the judges. You also may be able to analyze the likelihood of appeal and reversal for cases handled by different courts.