Judicial Process Analysis

Once the person has been arrested he/she appears in court in order to determined by the court if the person is guilty or not. The defendant is made aware of their legal rights and if they are found not guilty during the initial appearance no further action is needed. However, if the defendant is found guilty then he/she either is released on a bail bond or kept in detention depending on the seriousness of the crime till the trail takes place.

This landmark case in criminal procedure was marked by great public criticism for the liberal stance shown by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ensures defendant’s rights to what many people regarded as opening the door to convicted criminals to escape punishment through “technicalities”.

What did the judge do wrong? Which judicial selection option—either appointment, election, or merit—would help to reduce instances of judicial misconduct?

Courts play a vital role in the Criminal Justice System in America, however; understanding how the courts work and function is essential. Even the general public should have a basic knowledge regarding the similarities and differences of the jurisdiction and structure of our dual court system – federal and state. In addition, there are ethical and diversity issues that can be experienced by each of the courts that could possibly impact the courts’ functioning.

Bogira paints a portrait of some of the more personal and nuanced day-to-day activities that go into courtroom behavior and decision making. Describe some of the often overlooked aspects of day-to-day court operations (i.e., judges background, public pressures, defense attorney and prosecutorial ambitions, etc.) and how they may affect court outcomes for defendants. Bogira paints a portrait of the real side of the law and after reading Courtroom 302 I’m applauded at the things I’ve read. Bogira’s showed a different side to prosecutors, detectives, and judges detailing the little to no interest they had in righting the wrongs caused by the court.

It is not without questionable doubt that the United States judiciary branch is in need of a major political reform in terms of the injustice that has become so common within the system. The main purpose of the judicial system is to rightfully resolve disagreements according to law. In 1988, Ronald Kitchen was wrongfully convicted for committing five murders, after serving nearly 21 years in prison in which 13 of them on death row he was released. There was an insufficient amount of evidence against him, however, it was the tortures that he endured for almost two days that coerced false confessions from Kitchen to pleading guilty to the murders. The justice system has lost its true purpose of finding justice for whoever is truly at fault. Instead of truth-seeking, court cases have become more about self-interest and winning. Majority of cases do not even reach trial, before then the guilty are let go free or let off easy while the innocent take guilty pleas in fear of risking loosing at trial. Today’s trials just involve two sides in continuous debate that end in the hope for the judge and jury to be able to emerge the truth. Modern judiciary branch has become so accustomed to the idea that court is a neutral course and the judges

The United States system of criminal justice actually goes far beyond the beginnings of American government. The system is based on the English system, and the same is followed by governments around the world. This paper deals with the appeals process, how it fits into the criminal justice system, what can be done to improve the system, and follows an actual case through the US system.

The first juvenile court to be established in the United States was set up in the state of Chicago back in 1899 and has since then undergone a number of significant changes. This paper will seek to provide an analysis of the juvenile court process, highlight the changes that have taken place in the role of this court over the years in addition to also identifying why the role of the juvenile court has changed.

The main players inside the courtroom will be presented through this article by underscoring some cases influenced by these people. The main players in the courtroom are the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the judge. This article will also use the due process control model and the crime control model in evaluating the judicial process. The standards set by Strickland v. Washington will also be clarified by describing it and its effect on courtroom cases.

In Federalists 78 Hamilton explains that the judicial branch is the “least dangerous” out of all the branches because it only has the power to judge but not to act, unlike the legislative and executive branches. If the judicial branch does come to a ruling in the court, it must go through the other branches before it can actually get carried out. The judicial branch doesn’t have the power to tax or spend because they don’t have access to the purse nor they have the power to use the military.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has changed along with the situations and controversies of the time period. The interpretations and connotations of many amendments and constitutional clauses have grown and evolved throughout history, and it is the job of the justice system to adapt to match these changes. As different situations and scenarios have presented themselves, the justices of the Supreme Court have wrestled with moral, judicial, legal, and societal reasons to make decisions regarding the rights of the accused. In many situations, there is not always a clear-cut divide between right and wrong. This provides various challenges for the court system, as its members are forced to make decisions based on a plethora of justifications.

During the reading of this chapter, I now have a better understanding of our court system and how it plays a significant role in our society. Although the United States court system is rather complex and also needs a reform due to the bias views and the unfair treatment among minorities, without our court system it would be extremely difficult to enforce laws.

According to the measure, supreme court and intermediate appellate court judges must be appointed by the governor, confirmed by the Tennessee State Legislature, and face retention elections at the end of their terms. This provided the state legislature with some input into the process.Which lawyers are selected to be judges is determined by both informal and formal methods. Major Judges are selected by three different ways. The first way is judges are appointed by executives like governors and the president. The United States Constitution gives power to the President and Senate nominate who will become judges. The second way is they are elected by voters Judges are chosen by a legislative committee based on each potential judge's past performance. Some states hold "retention elections" to determine if the judge should continue to serve.

According to the advocates of the judicial restraint and activism, a right to privacy reflects upon the Supreme Court Justices’ interpretation of the Framer’s intents in the United States Constitution. The judicial restraint generally refers to the judge’s decision based on the laws written by the Framers and their intent of it. Since the Framer did not specify the rights to privacy, the legal approach does not allow the Supreme Court Justices to create the right to privacy.

Cann explains that the judicial elections, which have become far more politicized and expensive over the years, continue to dismiss the impartiality and diminish the esteem of the judiciary in the United States(1)