Problem Solving Courts In The State Court System

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

the most common, and are the ones people are used to seeing and hearing about. Trial courts

There are two kinds of court in this country. The two courts are state and federal. In this essay I️ will be briefing you on the things that they have in common and the things they don’t have in common such as behavior in the court and the way they handle the state court room.

Walter Chaplinsky, was utilizing an open spot to disperse leaflets against a specific religion. After a vast group obstructed the street and made a scene. Chaplinsky was captured by the police. The town marshal who had cautioned him already additionally met him and Chaplinsky called him “a damned Fascist” and a " god-damned racketeer " (Dorf & Michael, n,d).

I do agree that it’s not too many layers and that it’s a good system. It gives us balance between the state and federal. The state is allowed to handle local issues that deals directly with it local citizens and that federal courts helps out to interpret the constitution to ensure that citizens’ rights weren’t violated by the states courts.

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)

The state court system in the State of Washington is divided into five different levels with each level exercising a different area of authority based on the seriousness of the legal issues being addressed and the prior history of the case (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts). For instance, in the lower levels of the system, such as the District and Municipal Courts the jurisdiction limits of said courts are limited to cases where the amount in controversy is less than $75,000.00 or where the criminal sanction is less than one year in county jail. As one progresses up the different levels, the amount in controversy and criminal sanctions increase proportionately.

The State of Texas should continue electing state-level judges in partisan elections instead of being appointed by the governor with approval of the Texas Senate. The most popular method of selecting state-level judges is the assisted appointment, where a nominating committee of both lawyers and non-lawyers review the applications of individuals wanting the position. This committee then gives their list of the top candidates to the governor, and the governor then chooses from that list. In my opinion, this would be the best method of selecting state-level judges as each candidate is reviewed in a committee chosen by the state bar/executive branch. This helps promote the best candidates being chosen. However, given the two choices, elections

All of these issues are handled within the judicial system, but depending on the issue, will be handled at different levels. As noted above, there are different levels in the hierarchy of the U. S. judicial system. These courts have separate and unique structures between the federal and state level. The federal court system is broken down between trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2010). This is very similar to the structure of the California state court system, which also has trial courts, appellate courts, and the State Supreme Court (Judicial Council of California, 2016). The difference between the two is in jurisdiction. The federal court system is very limited in that they can only hear matters involving federal law, disputes among states, disputes involving diversity of citizenship, and disputes where the United States itself is named as a party (Reed et al., 2016). While the federal system is significantly limited in its jurisdiction, California trial courts, or Superior Courts, are courts of general jurisdiction, and can hear civil, criminal, family, probate, mental health, juvenile, and traffic matters arising within the State of California (Judicial Council of California,

I believe that one of the best reforms to our justice system is the growing number of Problem-Solving Courts. Problem-Solving Courts are specialized courts that focus on specific problems in society, such as drug abuse, prostitution, mental-health, domestic violence, etc (Courts). I have chosen drug courts more specifically to research. According to drugpolicy.org, in 2012 1.55 million people were arrested for non-violent drug charges (Drug Policy Alliance). This is an astounding amount of people being arrested, which is why I believe it is important to have problem-solving courts. Unlike traditional courts, these specialized courts address the issues that individuals have that cause them to commit crimes in order to reduce the chances of

The decisions of state courts across the nation vary regarding the independent nature of the state judicial branch, and the different tiers of courts, trial, and the appellate. The selection of judges, the removal of judges and the issue covering caseload among other reforms are comparable across all states courts. In NY, the structure of the court system is similar to trials court and appeals courts (Pecorella and Stonecash 178). Bowman suggests more efficiently manage the caseload and political influence in the judiciary (Bowman 193-4). According to Bowman, state trial courts amounts to more than 100 million new cases each year (Bowman 225). The case load in NY’s eleven trial courts is one of the busiest in the nation's court system (Pecorella and Stonecash 171).

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

1. What is meant by a dual court system in the U.S.? What impact does the court system in the U.S. have on criminal law?

This paper will include material about state and federal court systems. Terms such as subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction will be described in detail. There are requirements of personal jurisdiction in a federal court and three different types of personal jurisdiction. The two types of cases that federal courts may hear are criminal cases and civil cases which will also be discussed.

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.