How many judges are required to hear and decide a case in a district court

Jurisdictions of the Federal and State Court Systems

The national and state governments have different, but sometimes overlapping, spheres of power. This holds true also for their court systems. The power of a court system to hear and decide a case is called its jurisdiction.

A case may originate in either a federal or a state court, depending on the nature of the suit.

Although there are many types of courts, the main state and federal judicial systems involve general, trial courts, with appeals taken to one or more higher courts.

Federal courts have particularized subject-matter jurisdiction, usu­ally based on «federal questions» or diversity jurisdiction. State courts have general subject-matter jurisdiction.

Courts follow their own procedural law. However, in some cases, they may apply the substantive law of another state.

For torts, the applicable law is usually that where the injury oc­curred.

For contracts, courts generally look to the law intended (expressly
or implicitly) by the parties to the contract.

The federal courts were provided for in the Constitution of the United States on the theory that the judicial power of the federal government could not be entrusted to the states, which was necessary for a strong national government. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, organizing the Supreme Court of the United States and establishing a system of federal courts of inferior jurisdiction.

The U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when the parties include
ambassadors or other foreign officials, or when two states are the opposing
parties. However, almost all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court arise
out of its appellate jurisdiction: the power to hear appeals from other courts’
decisions. Appeals generally involve interpretation of constitutional law
and/or federal statutes.

A decision of the Supreme Court cannot be appealed to any other court. Neither the President nor Congress can change their decisions.

The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices. They are nominated by the President but must be approved by the Senate. Once approved, they hold office as Supreme Court justices for life.

Other federal courts are the district courts, the courts of appeals, the Claims Court, the Court of International Trade, the Tax Court, and the territorial courts established in the federally administered territories of the United States.

The federal courts’ power is limited to actual “cases or controversies”. This provision has prevented federal courts from furnishing advisory opinion, even if requested by another branch of government. (Many state courts can and do issue advisory opinions). The case must be a real dispute between opposing parties with actual interests in the case (standing to sue, because of direct and immediate injury from, or other such connection with, the mater at issue). The proceeding must be in an adversarial format. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction(meaning that proceedings commence there) over federal criminal cases and certain specified civil cases.

The federal courts are limited to hearing cases specifically placed within their power (subject-matter jurisdiction) by the U.S. Constitution or other laws. Nu­merous federal statutes, as well as certain exclusively federal areas under the Constitution (e.g., admiralty, bankruptcy, patents, copyrights), give the federal courts a vast array of subjects to decide; these areas are called federal questions (cases involving the federal constitution, statutes, or treaties). While sometimes federal court jurisdiction is exclusive (e.g., prosecution of persons charged with violating federal criminal laws), in some areas jurisdiction is concurrent, that is, state courts can also hear cases on these subjects.

Note that diversity must be complete; that is, in cases involving multiple parties not even one party may have the same state citizenship as an opposing party. (It does not matter if parties on the same side, for example, two plaintiffs, come from the same state.)

If a defendant wishes to transfer a case from one state to another, or from state court to federal court, his/her request will be for removal. Such requests must be made at the beginning of the case and are premised on the claim that the correct jurisdiction lies in another court. In seeking a transfer from state to federal court, the defendant is often simply exercising a right to invoke diversity jurisdiction, or some other concurrent federal jurisdiction, which the plaintiff failed to use but the defendant also has a right to choose.

Of course, there are other types of courts. For instance, many federal and state administrative agencies have their own judicial systems. There are specialized courts (e.g., federal bankruptcy courts), and states generally have special courts (ones without juries) for cases involving small amounts or special litigants, such as orphans or landlords and tenants. However, the general trial courts, with juries available, remain the crucial arena for most important cases.

Federaljudges are appointed for life. At age 70, a judge may go on ‘’inactive status» at full pay.

The following diagram shows the structure of the federal court system.

The Federal Judicial System

As for the state courts, they are generally open to hear any type of case unless it is precluded by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes or treaties. Most com­mon law areas – for instance, torts, contracts, crimes – tend to be brought before state courts.

In criminal cases, courts apply their own substantive and procedural laws, regardless of where the acts were committed; however, almost all criminal prosecutions take place in the same state where the alleged crime occurred.

Once a court with jurisdiction renders a judgement, the U.S. Constitution’s «full faith and credit» clause requires that, as between the parties to the lawsuit, the judgement must be honored by other states’ courts.

State judges are sometimes appointed, sometimes elected.

Vocabulary

administrative agencyn административный орган

adversarialadj состязательный (в судебном процессе)

advisoryadj совещательный, консультативный

allegedadj заявленный, наличествующий

arenan арена

circuit courtn выездная сессия окружного суда (в ряде штатов США); сircuit court of appealsокружной апелляционный суд (федеральный суд 2-ой инстанции в США)

commencev начинать; commence proceedings начинать; возбудить

производство по делу

controversyn спор

county court n суд округа штата

crucialadj решающий

discretionn усмотрение; within the discretionна усмотрение

district court n 1федеральный районный суд (федеральный суд первой

инстанции в США); 2местный суд (в ряде штатов США)

diversity jurisdictionn неединообразная юриспруденция

domestic relations court n суд по семейным делам (местный суд специальной

юрисдикции в штате)

entrustv вверять; возлагать

establishv 1учреждать; 2устраивать

“full faith and credit” clauseпункт о признании и доверии (по Конституции

США признание законов и судебных решений)

furnishv предоставлять, обеспечивать

holdv syn consider, believe полагать, признавать, считать

hold officev занимать должность

holding n судебное решение

inferioradj нижестоящий; inferior jurisdictionнижестоящая юрисдикция,

нижестоящая инстанция; appellate jurisdictionапелляционная юрисдикция;

original jurisdiction юрисдикция суда первой инстанции

invalidadj юридически недействительный; не имеющий силы

jurisdictionn юрисдикция

justicen судья; chief justiceстарший судья; председательствующий судья;

associate justiceчлен суда

landlordn 1собственник недвижимости; 2арендодатель

litigantn тяжущаяся сторона

orphann сирота

overlappingadj (частично) совпадающий; overlapv покрывать

particularizedadj перечисленный

precludev исключать

Probate Courtv суд по делам о наследствах

procedural lawn процессуальное право

provisionn положение

removal n передача, перенос (дела из одной инстанции в другую)

render a judgement v выносить судебное решение

review by appealпересмотр в порядке апелляции

rule v признавать

rung n ступенька

small claims court n суд по делам с небольшой суммой денег

subject-matter jurisdictionn предметная подсудность

Supreme Courtn Верховный суд (федеральный и в большинстве штатов США)

tenant n арендатор

traffic courtn транспортный суд

trial courtn суд первой инстанции

Reading tasks

Answer these questions.

1What are two main court systems in the U.S.?

2What is the structure of the federal court system?

3How does the federal court system work?

4What are the main functions of the U.S. Supreme Court?

5What power has Congress concerning the Supreme Court?

6In what cases has the Supreme Court direct jurisdiction?

7In what way is the Supreme Court different from all other U.S. courts?

8What are the U.S. federal courts and their functions?

9What offences are tried by the federal courts?

10Where are the most serious offences tried?

11At what level is a jury trial possible?

12What are the U.S. state courts and their functions?

13How can a state case be appealed to the federal level?

14Which courts deal with appeals?

15What areas are called “federal questions”?

Comprehension check

Mark these sentences T (true) or F (false) according to the information in the text.

1The Supreme Court consists of the chief justice and ten associate justices.

2The Supreme Court has the right to declare unconstitutional some laws passed by the Congress.

3The USA is divided into twelve judicial circuits.

4There are about two hundred district judges in the USA.

5In most of the states the lowest courts are the magistrates or police courts.

6Most of the criminal and civil cases are tried by district courts.

7Special courts hear appeals from lower courts.

Language focus

ARead these statements. Then ask questions about the underlined words.

1The witness recognized Harry Adams.

Who recognized Harry Adams?

2The witness recognized Harry Adams.

Who did the witness recognize?

3The court session begins at 9:00 a.m.

4Five witnesses testified.

5The jury found Adams guilty because he didn’t have an alibi.

6Something horrible happened.

7The trial lasted two weeks.

8The judge spoke to the jury.

9Adams paid his barrister £2.000.

10The prosecution questioned the restaurant manager.

BComplete the sentences with the correct form of the verb in brackets, active or passive.

In the United States, as in England, decisions handed down by federal and state courts 1) _______ (constitute) a primary source of the common law. New cases requiring the interpretation of statutes 2) _______ (arise) continually. When no precedent can 3) _______ (find) the judge’s decision 4) _______ ( produce) a new legal principle.

To originate in a federal court, a case must 5) _______ (involve) a real dispute between opposing parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court 6) _______ (have) original jurisdiction over certain cases, but its main function is to review lower court decisions that 7) _______ (appeal).

A defendant who 8) _______ (not challenge) the court’s personal jurisdiction over him/her 9) _______ (deem) to have consented to that court’s determination of his/her rights and obligations. However, the defense, that subject matter jurisdiction 10) _______ (lack), cannot 11) _______ (waive).

Vocabulary tasks

AMatch the following English legal expressions with their Russian equivalents.

BMatch these terms with their definitions.

C At trial

The climax of the legal proceedings is the trial. Read the following text about the trial and the answer the true/false questions below the text.

A trial may be defined broadly and comprehensively as a judicial examination of the issues between the parties. Although some variations may exist, trials are usually held before a judge sitting alone, a referee, or a judge and jury. The counsels for the prosecution and for the defence make opening statements to the jury, outlining what each sees as the nature of the case and what each hopes to prove as the trial proceeds. Next, the counsel for the prosecution presents his case by calling witnesses, questioning them, and permitting them to be cross-examined by the counsel for the defence. The counsel for each side then makes a closing argument to the jury, summarizing the evidence in a light most favourable to their respective clients. The function of the jury is to determine the facts of the case, whereas the function of the judge is to determine the applicable law and to oversee the parties’ presentation of the facts to the court. After the judge has instructed the jury on the applicable law, the jury will retire to deliberate in private until it reaches a just verdict, which will then be announced in open court. The verdict of a jury terminates the trial. In a case tried before a judge sitting alone, the decision of the judge constitutes a termination of the trial.

DComplete the following statements with the appropriate expressions from the Text B.

The Supreme Court of the USA consists of 1) _______. They are appointed by 2) _______, and must be approved by 3) _______. A decision of the Supreme Court 4) _______ to any other court. The Supreme Court has direct jurisdiction in the following kinds of cases: 5) _______. All other cases are 6) _______. Each 7) _______ may include any number of judges, one of whom will hear a 8) _______.

If a party wishes to appeal 9) _______, he/she brings the case before the appeals court, the circuit court, for that district.

Generally, a lawsuit is to be brought 10) _______.

EComplete the following text with the words from the box.

The federal courts have three tiers: 1) _______ courts, courts of 2) _______ and the 3) _______ Court. The 4) _______ Court was created by the Constitution; all other 5) _______ courts were created by Congress. Most litigation occurs in 6) _______ courts. The structure of 7) _______ courts varies from state to state; usually there are 8) _______ for less serious cases, 9) _______ for more serious cases, intermediate 10) _______ courts and courts of last 11) _______. State courts were created by state constitutions.

Text C

The Miranda Warning

You are going to read about Mr. Miranda’s case. Divide the text in paragraphs and head each of them.

«You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be used against you. «, these are the words of the «Miranda warning» which was created as a result of 1966 United States Supreme Court case, Miranda vs Arizona. It began when Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken into custody to the police station, where he was identified by a witness as the man who had kidnapped and raped a woman. Police officers took Mr. Miranda into an interrogation room and two hours later emerged with a written confession signed by Mr. Miranda that also stated that the confession was made voluntarily and with full knowledge of his legal rights. The officers, however, failed to advise Mr. Miranda that he had a right to have an attorney present.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that the confession could not be used as evidence of Mr. Miranda’s guilt because he was not fully advised on his legal rights, which included the right to have his attorney present. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

To ensure that other accused criminals are made aware of their constitutional rights, the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect who is taken into custody and interrogated must receive a warning of the following rights: the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has a right of the presence of an attorney, and that if he can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. The ‘Miranda warning’ is now applied by law officers throughout the United States as a result of this ruling.

Vocabulary

confession n признание; признание в совершении преступления

custodyn задержание; содержание под стражей; take into custodyвзять под

deprive v лишать

emergev возникать; появляться

empower v уполномочивать

interrogationn допрос

police stationn полицейский участок

rapev изнасиловать

rulev установить, постановить; rulen 1правовая норма; 2 постановление;

приказ; rulingn решение (суда); постановление

vsabbreviation from versusпротив

warningn предупреждение

Reading tasks

Answer these questions.

1 Why is the warning about the legal rights of the American citizens called “the Miranda Warning”?

2 Why did the court rule that Mr. Miranda’s confession couldn’t be used against him?

3 What is the aim of the US Supreme Court ruling?

Организация стока поверхностных вод: Наибольшее количество влаги на земном шаре испаряется с поверхности морей и океанов (88‰).

Общие условия выбора системы дренажа: Система дренажа выбирается в зависимости от характера защищаемого.

How the Judicial System Works

­Th­e United States is renowned for ha­ving one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world. Every day thousands of people, including law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges, government officials and ­even accused criminals, take part in this system, hoping to settle disputes and work for justice. What makes this system even more remarkable is that it is able to operate successfully in a country as large and diverse as the United States. One of the keys to this success is a balanced and carefully ordered hierarchy: Several different federal courts control issues relating to federal law and each state has its own set of courts that can adapt to the needs of its people.

Of course, it’s all a bit more complicated than that and no system works perfectly, but learning how the judicial system works can be useful in case you ever need to file a law suit, defend yourself in court, claim damages from the government or even pay a traffic ticket. In this article we’ll talk about what the different types of courts do, how judges are appointed and the basics of jury duty. Let’s start by looking at the essential elements of the U.S. judicial system.

Judicial System Basics

The U.S. legal system is in part inherited from English common law and depends on an adversarial system of justice. In an adversarial system, litigants present their cases before a neutral party. The arguments expressed by each litigant (usually represented by lawyers) are supposed to allow the judge or jury to determine the truth about the conflict. Besides presenting written or oral arguments, evidence and testimony are collected by litigants and their lawyers and presented to the court.

Many rules exist regarding how evidence and testimony are presented, trial procedure, courtroom behavior and, etiquette and how evidence and testimony are presented. These rules are designed to promote fairness and allow each side an opportunity to adequately present its case. For federal courts, the rules are determined by committees composed of judges, professors and lawyers appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. The rules are then approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States and become law unless Congress votes to reject or modify them. State courts and local courts have their own committees and procedural rules, sometimes adapted from the rules for the federal courts. Many judges also have their own rules guiding conduct in their courtrooms.

The majority of legal disputes in the U.S. are settled in state courts, but federal courts have considerable power. Many of their rulings become precedent, or a principle, law or interpretation of a law established by a court ruling. Precedent is generally respected by other courts when dealing with a case or situation similar to past precedent. This policy is known as stare decisis or “let the decision stand.” Precedent is sometimes overturned or disregarded by a court, but the policy generally provides continuity in courts’ interpretations of the law.

Let’s now take a look at the federal court system and why it’s so important.

Thank you to Scott Silverman for his assistance with this article.

Judicial System of the USA

The Supreme Court is the highest judicial organ of the United States and the head of the judicial branch.

The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of the USA and such a number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by Congress. Power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made by and with the advice and consent of the

Senate. The appointments are made for life, that is, a Justice cannot be dismissed from his/her post. A Justice may if he/she so desires, retire at the age of 70 after serving 10 years as a Federal Judge, or at the age of 65 after 15 years of service. The Supreme Court has the right to declare unconstitutional any law passed by Congress, or any order issued by the President.

The USA is divided into 13 federal judicial circuits, each one being served with a court of appeals known as the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit. Included in these 13 judicial circuits is the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the

There are about 90 district courts in the USA. Each state is comprised of one or more federal judicial districts, and in each district there is a district court. The United States district courts are the trial courts with general Federal jurisdiction over cases involving federal laws or offenses and actions between citizens of different states. Each state has at least one district court. There is also a United States district court in the District of Columbia. Only one judge is usually required to hear and decide a case in a district court, but in some kinds of cases it is required that three judges be called together to comprise the court. In districts with more than one judge, the judge senior in commission who has not reached his seventieth birthday acts as the chief judge.

II СЕМЕСТР

• модальные глаголы и их эквиваленты,

• времена группы Continuous (Present, Past, Future) в активном залоге

• времена группы Perfect (Present, Past, Future) в активном и пассивном залоге.

Выполните следующие упражнения:

I.Переведите следующие предложения, обращая внимание на видо-временную форму глагола.

in many countries of the world. 16. I’ve already passed all the exams and I’m leaving for my native town tonight. 17. The articles had been translated and typed by last Tuesday.

II.Прочитайте и переведите следующие предложения:

III.Прочитайте и переведите следующие предложения:

IVОтветьте на следующие приказания по модели:

1. Water the flowers! 2. Cut the bread! 3. Dust the furniture! 4. Take the books to the library! 5. Translate Text 2 on Page 54! 6. Write out new words from the text! 7. Learn the poem by heart! 8. Buy a good dictionary! 9.Wash your hands! 10. Send her photo to him! 11. Read the article! 12. Listen to the latest news!

VНайдите правильный ответ:

1. Participle II правильных глаголов образуется при помощи:

2. Participle II неправильных глаголов образуется при помощи:

d) по разному (вторая форма глагола)

е) по разному (третья форма глагола)

3. Какие глаголы образуют Participle II с помощью «-ed»?

a) to do b) to work c) to be d) to see e) to study

4. Какие глаголы образуют Participle II по разному?

a) to meet b) to ask c) to begin d) to know e) to translate

5. Present Perfect используется:

a) когда есть результат законченного действия, но время действия не указано

b) со словами «already, yet, just, ever, never»

d) со словами «today, this week, this month, this year»

e) если мы спрашиваем, когда действие произошло

6. При образовании Perfect смысловой глагол должен быть в форме:

a) Participle I (writing, opening)

b) Infinitive with «to» (to write, to open)

c) Participle II (written, opened)

d) Infinitive without «to» (write, open)

e) Past Indefinite (wrote, opened)

7. Вспомогательным глаголом для образования времен Perfect служит:

a) to do b) to be c) to have d) to get d) to become

8. Найдите инфинитив в Perfect Active:

a) to be elected b) to have elected c) to have been elected

d) to have been electing e) to be being elected

9. Найдите глаголы в Present Perfect Active:

d) has been written

e) have been written

10. Найдите предложения в Present Perfect Active:

a) I haven’t heard the news yet.

b) Pete has just bought a new dictionary.

c) Ann bought a new dress yesterday.

d) Who has taken my pen?

e) Helen has been bought a new dress.

a) shall b) were c) have d) has e) did

a) didn’t meet b) haven’t met c) hasn’t met

d) doesn’t meet e) hasn’t been met

13. Найдите правильный вопрос к подчеркнутому члену предложения:

«He has bought a few English books this week»

a) Who has bought a few English books?

b) What books has he bought?

c) When did he buy a few English books?

d) How many English books has he bought?

e) What has he bought this week?

a) was not b) haven’t been c) had not been

d) hasn’t been e) were not

15. Найдите правильный ответ к следующему вопросу: «Has your brother helped you?»

a) Yes, he did. b) Yes, he is. c) Yes, he was.

d) Yes, he does. e) Yes, he has

VIПрочитайте и переведите следующие предложения:

1. I had studied English before I entered the University. 2. They had arrived at the station by 5 o’clock. 3. Bob had written the report by Sunday. 4.The teacher had given the pupils their home task before the bell rang. 5. I had heard it was a good film so we decided to go and see it. 6. He felt much happier once he had found a new job. 7. Mother had cooked dinner by the time we got hungry. 8. Ann had had dinner by that time. 9.They had sent all the invitation cards long before the wedding party. 10. The children had already fallen asleep when their parents returned home after the concert.

Прочитайте и переведите следующие тексты:

THE STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS

With certain notable exceptions, the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a broad variety of cases. The same federal judges handle both civil and criminal cases, public law and private law disputes, cases involving individuals and cases involving corporations and government entities, appeals from administrative agency decisions, and law and equi­ty matters. There are no separate constitutional courts, because all federal courts and judges may decide issues regarding the constitutionality of federal laws and other governmental actions that arise in the cases they hear

Trial courts

The United States district courts are the principal trial courts in the federal court system. The district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal cases. There are 94 federal judicial districts, including one or more in each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the overseas territories.

Each federal judicial district includes a United States bankruptcy court operating as a unit of the district court. The bankruptcy court has nation­wide jurisdiction over almost all matters involving insolvency cases except criminal issues. Once a case is filed in a bankruptcy court, related matters pending in other federal and state courts can be removed to the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy courts are administratively managed by the bank­ruptcy judges.

Two special trial courts within the federal judicial branch have nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of cases. The Court of International Trade addresses cases involving international trade and customs issues. The United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over disputes involving federal contracts, the taking of private property by the federal government, and a variety of other monetary claims against the United States.

Trial court proceedings are conducted by a single judge, sitting alone or with a jury of citi­zens as finders of fact. The Constitution provides for a right to trial by a jury in many categories of cases, including: (1) all serious criminal prosecu­tions; (2) those civil cases in which the right to a jury trial applied under English law at the time of American independence; and (3) cases in which the United States Congress has expressly provided for the right to trial by jury.

Apellate courts

The 94 judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appeals. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from certain federal administrative agencies. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims. There is a right of appeal in every federal case in which a district court enters a final judgment.

The courts of appeals typically sit in panels of three judges. They are not courts of cassation, and they may review a case only if one or more parties files a timely appeal from the decision of a lower court or administrative agency. When an appeal is filed, a court of appeals reviews the decision and record of proceedings in the lower court or administrative agency. The court of appeals does not hear additional evidence, and generally must accept the factual findings of the trial judge. If additional fact-finding is necessary, the court of appeals may remand the case to the trial court or administrative agency. Remand is unnecessary in most cases, however, and the court of appeals either affirms or reverses the lower court or agency decision in a written order or written opinion.

In cases of unusual importance, a court of appeals may sit en bane – that is, with all the appellate judges in the circuit present to review the decisions of a three-judge panel. The full court may affirm or reverse the panel decision.

The United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices. The court always sits en bane, with all nine justices hearing and deciding all cases together. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is almost completely discretionary, and, to be exercised, requires the agreement of at least four justices to hear a case. (In a small number of spe­cial cases, such as boundary disputes between the states, the Supreme Court acts either as the court of first instance or exercises mandatory appellate review). As a general rule, the Court only agrees to decide cases where there is a split of opinion among the courts of appeals or where there is an important constitutional question or issue of feder­al law that needs to be clarified.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL JUDGES

Appointment of judges

Justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the courts of appeals and the district courts, and judges of the Court of International Trade, are appointed under Article III of the Constitution. They are nominated and appointed by the President of the United States and must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate. Article III judges are appointed for life, and they can only be removed by the Congress through the impeachment process specified in the Constitution. The judiciary plays no role in the nomination or confirmation process.

The primary criterion for appointment to a feder­al judgeship is a person’s total career and academic achievements. No examinations are administered to judicial candidates. Rather, a person seeking a judgeship is required to complete a lengthy set of forms that set forth in detail his or her personal qualifications and career accomplishments, including such matters as academic background, job experi­ences, public writings, intellectual pursuits, legal cases handled, and outside activities. Candidates also are subject to extensive interviews, background investigations, and follow-up questioning.

Politics is an important factor in the appointment of Article III judges. Candidates are normally select­ed by the President from a list of candidates provid­ed by the Senators or other office holders from the President’s own party within the state in which the appointment is to be made. In addition, the President’s nominee must appear in person at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, and the Senate must vote to confirm each judge. Article III judges are usually nominated by the President from among the ranks of prominent practicing lawyers, lower federal court judges, state court judges, or law professors who reside within the district or circuit where the courtsits.

Each federal judge is appointed to fill a specific, authorized judgeship in a specific district or circuit. Judges have no authority to hear cases in other courts unless they are formally designated to do so. Because of heavy caseloads in certain districts, judges from other courts are often asked to hear cases in these districts.

Other federal judges

Bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges are judicial officers of the district courts, but they are not Article III judges. They are not appointed under a political process, and the President and Senate play no role in their selection. Rather, they are appointed by the courts of appeals and the district courts, respectively, with the assistance of merit selection panels composed of local lawyers and other citizens.

Bankruptcy judges are appointed by the judges of the courts of appeals for 14-year terms. Magistrate judges are appointed by the judges of the district court for eight-year terms. Before reappointing a bankruptcy judge or a magistrate judge to an additional term, the appointing court must publish a public notice seeking comments on the incum­bent’s performance and convene a merit panel to recommend to the court whether the incumbent should be reappointed.

Judges of the Court of Federal Claims are appointed for terms of 15 years by the President, subject to confirmation by a majority of the Senate.

State judges

State judges handle most cases in the United States, but they are not part of the federal court system. Rather, they serve in the state court systems estab­lished by state governments. Like federal judges, state judges are required to support the federal Constitution and may invalidate state laws that they find inconsistent with the Constitution. State judges are selected in several ways, according to state consti­tutions and statutes. Most are either elected by the public in general elections or are appointed by the governor of the state for an original term and may be retained for additional terms by popular vote in a general election.

PREPARATION FOR TRIAL

Very careful preparation on the part of the state and the defense precedes the trial. However, the defense may first enter a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court over the particular offense involved, or over the particular defend­ant. The defense attorney also may file a demurrer, or mo­tion for dismissal. In preparing for trial, attorneys for both sides will interview prospective witnesses, and if deemed necessary, secure expert evidence, and gather testimony con­cerning ballistics, chemical tests, casts, and other similar data.

tried before a jury, the judge rules upon points of law dealing with trial procedure, presentation of the evidence and the law of the case. If the case is tried before the judge alone, he will determine the facts in addition to performing the afore­mentioned duties.

The court clerk is an officer of the court, also either elect­ed or appointed, who at the beginning of the trial, upon the judge’s instruction, gives the entire panel of prospective ju­rors (veniremen) on oath. By this oath the venireman promises that if called he will truly answer any questions touching upon his qualifications to sit as a juror in the case. Any ve­nireman who is disqualified by law, or has a valid reason to be excused under the law, ordinarily is excused by the judge at this time. A person may be disqualified from jury duty because he is not a resident voter or householder, because of age, hearing defects, or because he has served recently on a ju­ry. Then the court clerk will draw the names of the additional, veniremen from a box, and they will take seats in the jury-box. After twelve veniremen have been approved as jurors by the judge and the attorneys, the court clerk will adminis­ter an oath to the persons so chosen «to well and truly try the cause».

The bailiff is an officer of the court whose duties are to keep order in the courtroom, to call the witnesses, and to take charge of the jury, as instructed by the court, at such times as the jury may not be in the courtroom, and particu­larly when, having received the case, the jury is deliberating upon its decision. It is the duty of the bailiff to see that no one talks with or attempts to influence the jurors in any man­ner whatsoever.

The court reporter has the duty of recording all of the proceedings in the courtroom, including testimony of the witnesses, objections made to evidence by the attorneys and the rulings of the court thereon, and listing and marking for identification any exhibits offered or introduced into evi­dence. In some states, the clerk of the court has charge of ex­hibits.

The attorneys are officers of the court whose duties are to represent their respective clients and present the evidence on their behalf, to the end that the jury or the judge may reach a just verdict or decision.

The role of the attorney is sometimes misunderstood, particularly in criminal proceedings. The present system of jurisprudence presumes every defendant to be innocent until other training in the institution or medical treatment will substantially enhance his capacity to lead a law-abiding life when released at a later date.

Beyond these grounds of decision, the Code puts forward a set of considerations that a board should take into account, measuring them against the criteria, in determining whether the prisoner should be released at that time. These guides are somewhat similar to the variables that have been included in various parole prediction tables, though their focus is more largely upon the prisoner’s response to the institutional treat­ment program, his parole plan, and his attitude rather than merely upon the background factors associated with personal adjustment. Attention is directed toward the prisoner’s rel­ative readiness at the time of eligibility, as compared with some later time, and toward relevant considerations involv­ing the community and the offender’s adjustment there, rather than toward the absolute probabilities of parole vio­lation. These are the matters the Code proposed that parole agencies should take into account in weighing the criteria noted above:

1. The prisoner’s personality, including his maturity, stability, sense of responsibility and any apparent develop­ment in his personality which may promote or hinder his conformity to law.

2. The adequacy of the prisoner’s parole plan.

3. The prisoner’s ability and readiness to assume obliga­tions and undertake responsibilities.

4. The prisoner’s intelligence and training.

5. The prisoner’s family status and whether he has rela­tives who display an interest in him, or whether he has other close and constructive associations in the community.

6. The prisoner’s employment history, his occupational skills, and the stability of his past employment.

7. The type of residence, neighborhood or community in which the prisoner plans to live.

8. The prisoner’s past use of narcotics, or past habitual and excessive use of alcohol.

9. The prisoner’s mental of physical make-up, including any disability or handicaps which may affect his conformity to law.

10. The prisoner’s prior criminal record, including the na­ture and circumstances, recency and frequency of previous offenses.

11. The prisoner’s attitude toward law and authority.

12. The prisoner’s conduct in the institution, including particularly whether he’has taken advantage of the opportu­nities for constructive activity afforded by the institutional program, whether he has been punished for misconduct with­in six months prior to his hearing or reconsideration for pa­role release, whether he has forfeited any reductions of term during his period of imprisonment, and whether such reduc­tions have been restored at the time of hearing or reconsid­eration.

13. The prisoner’s conduct and attitude during any pre­vious experience of probation or parole and the recency of such experience.

CRIMINAL TRIAL

The judge is the officer of the court who is either elected or appointed to preside over the court. If the case is to be tried before a jury, the judge rules upon points of law dealing with trial procedure, presentation of the evidence, and the law of the case. The attorneys are officers of the court whose duties are to represent their respective clients and present the evidence on their behalf so that the jury or the judge may reach a just ver­dict or decision.

The present system of jurisprudence presumes every defendant to be innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Every defendant is entitled to be represented by legal counsel, regardless of the unpopularity of his case. This is a constitutional safeguard. In most cases a jury of twelve is required in either civil or criminal proceedings.

After selecting the jury the attorney for the state may make an opening statement for the purpose of advising the jury what he intends to prove in the case. Then the state will begin the presentation of evidence with their witnesses. A witness may testify to a matter of fact. He cannot testify to hearsay, that is, what someone else has told him. An attorney may not ask leading questions of his own witness. A leading question is one which suggests the answer desired.

When the state’s attorney has finished his direct examination of the witness, the defendant’s attorney may then cross-examine the witness upon any matter about which the witness has been questioned. The defence attorney may choose to present no evidence, or he may present certain evidence but not place the defendant upon the stand.

At the conclusion of the defendant’s case the attorney for the state and the defendant’s attorney will present closing arguments to summarise and comment on the evidence. Then the judge reads the instructions to the jury. The instructions cover the law as applicable to the case. The jury is taken to the jury room by the bailiff to deliberate upon its decision. In a criminal case the decision of the jury must be unanimous.

Upon reaching a verdict, the jury returns to the courtroom with the bailiff. When the verdict is read and accepted by the court, the jury is dismissed and the trial is concluded. If the defendant is convicted the judge will impose sentence. In most states and in the federal courts the function of imposing sentence is exclusively that of the judge.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

Criminal trials differ from civil proceedings in one very important respect. Since the outcome of a criminal trial may result in the defendant’s loss of liberty or even life, the courts evolved a rule which casts upon the prosecution a heavy burden of proof. No rule of Criminal Law is of more importance than that which requires the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt and not for the latter to establish his innocence; he is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Sec­ondly, they must satisfy the jury of his guilt beyond reason­able doubt. In civil cases where a plaintiff sues a defendant, he who shows that on a balance of probabilities the evidence is in his favour wins the day. In criminal cases, however, the Crown cannot succeed on a mere balance of probabilities. If there is any reasonable doubt whether the accused is guilty, he must be acquitted. An acquittal therefore either means that the jury believe the accused and are satisfied of his in­nocence, or that while not satisfied that lie is innocent, they do not feel sure of his guilt. In England there is no middle verdict such as the Scottish verdict of «not proven» to cover this sort of situation; «not guilty» is the only alternative to a conviction.

The heavier burden of proof required in criminal trials can also be seen to operate in the rules which provide that in certain cases corroboration is necessary. In some instances the rule is one of law and the absence of corroboration is a bar to conviction. For example, the unsworn evidence of a child must be corroborated. A jury cannot convict on such evidence alone, for the law does not consider it sufficiently reliable to warrant a conviction. In a charge of perjury the jury may not by law convict the accused on the uncorrobo­rated evidence of one witness alone. The falsity of the defendant must present sufficient evidence to convince the magistrate there is reason to believe the defendant has committed the crime with which he is charged. The defendant must be pres­ent at this hearing, but he may or may not present evidence on his own behalf.

If the magistrate believes the evidence justifies it, he will order the defendant bound over for trial in the proper court – i.e., placed under bond for appearance at trial, or held in jail if the charge involved is not a bailable offense, or if the defendant is unable to post bond. On the other hand, the magistrate may dismiss the charge and order the defend­ant released if he concludes the state has failed to produce sufficient evidence in the preliminary hearing.

In most instances a criminal case is placed on the court’s calendar for arraignment. On the date fixed, the accused ap­pears, the indictment or information is read to him, his rights are explained by the judge, and he is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty to the charge. If he pleads not guilty, his case will be set later for trial; if he pleads guilty, it or­dinarily will be set later for sentencing. In cases of minor offenses, sentences may be imposed immediately. But in some states, arraignment and plea are separate proceedings, held on different days.

THE PROBLEM OF PUNISHMENT

Compared with other aspects of the Criminal Law, the question of punishment is one of peculiar difficulty. For the lawyer it is a question which presents special problems for a variety of reasons. In the first place, although the task of imposing penalties is that of a subsection of the legal pro­fession, the punishment of a criminal is a combined operation of Parliament, the courts, and the administration. The range of penalties which may be imposed is in most cases set by the legislature, which fixes the maximum sentences for dif­ferent offences. In exceptional cases there may be a fixed or fixed minimum penalty. For the vast majority of offences, however, only the maximum penalty is prescribed by law, so that the court is left free to select in each actual case the appropriate sentence. After the court has selected what sen­tence seems suitable, the carrying out of this sentence falls to the lot of those who administer the penal system: prison governors and prison officers, those who are in charge of borstal and other detention institutions, and probation offi­cers, all of whom work under the aegis of the Home Office. Consequently, the part played by the courts is only one part of the whole operation of punishing the offender.

One result of this is that once sentence has been passed the courts are no longer concerned with the offender’s fate; their task is concluded. This means that the effect of the sentence can be seen less by the courts themselves than by those whose function it is to see that the sentence is carried out and by those who study the social effect of punishment. For tins reason those who actually pass sentence on the of­fender must to some extent work in the dark, unless they are willing to accept the guidance of those who study the effects of punishment.

Another difficulty confronting the lawyer in this field is that the problem of selecting the appropriate sentence is not one which can be solved by normal legal techniques. Purely legal problems he must tackle by threading his way through statutes, reported cases, and so forth in order to discover the legal rules relevant to his problem. The meaning of these rules must be established, and the rules must be applied to the facts of the problem in hand.

ENGLISH PRISONS

The punishment of criminal and political offenders by confining them in prisons is a modern practice, but prisons as places of detention are common to most societies through­out history.

The use of prisons, not as a means of punishment in them­selves, but as a way of ensuring safe custody, was established in Roman Law by Justinian in the fifth century, BC. The typical Roman prison was an underground cellar to which ac­cess was made from a small grating covering the top. An example of this kind of prisons still exists in Rome.

Imprisonment as a form of punishment was used in a few cases in Saxon England. The laws stipulated at that time that a person convicted of murder should be thrust into prison for one hundred and twenty days before he might be claimed by his kinsmen. A penalty of imprisonment for perjury in a Grand Assize was introduced by Henry II, and Henry III instituted a punishment of one year’s imprisonment for in­fringement of the forest law. In the last half of the thirteenth century Edward I used imprisonment extensively, but mainly to induce confession or to ensure the payment of fines.

In the middle of the eighteenth century most county au­thorities were responsible for the prisons in their capital towns, but almost as many were in private hands. No ques­tions were asked when a prisoner died. Indeed, for many of those who escaped capital punishment, death might have seemed preferable to the utter misery of mind and body which constituted existence in prison.

Attempts to improve this state of affairs were not un­known before Howard came on the scene. But John Ho­ward’s influence on the design and administration of prisons is quite unrivalled, and his proposals greatly influenced the way in which the large walled prisons of nineteenth century England were administered and designed.

Millbank, one of the most famous of the old London pris­ons, was the only national penitentiary to be erected under the provisions of the so-called «Hard Labour Act» passed in 1779. But five years before building work began at Millbank, in 1806, another prison was being erected: Dartmoor. This prison was far better in design than any county gaol or House of correction in England.

The Act of 1823, introducing the classification system at Millbank, was the first statute effecting a general reform of prisons to be enacted by Parliament. Now for the first time Justices were ordered to supply the Home Secretary with quarterly reports «upon every department of their prison administration».

By the Prisons Act of 1877 the Home Secretary was given full ministerial responsibility for everything concerning the English prisons.

Judge

A judge is an individual either elected or appointed as a judicial officer to preside over court proceedings. During both civil and legal proceedings, the judge makes decisions about questions of law, acts as a referee between the parties, rules on admissibility of testimony and evidence, and instructs the jury on how to deliberate the case. To explore this concept, consider the following judge definition.

Definition of Judge

Origin

1175-1225 Middle English juge

What are a Judge’s Duties in Court

A judge presides over each case that comes before the court. Because the judge is required to be an impartial evaluator in every case, he or she cannot give people advice about their cases, but are responsible for advising them what their rights in the matter are, and in criminal cases, what the possible penalties are if the individual is found guilty.

On the whole, it is the judge’s primary responsibility to ensure all of the parties, their representatives, and witnesses adhere to proper courtroom procedure. The judge is also responsible for making sure that each case goes through the legal process, and to trial, in a timely manner.

During the trial process, the judge rules on motions made by either party, makes important decisions about witness testimony and evidence to be presented, and either makes a final judgment on the case for which there is no jury, or instructs the jury about how to apply the law to the case they have heard.

What are a Judge’s Duties Outside the Courtroom

Outside the courtroom, in his or her office (called “chambers”), a judge spends a lot of time reviewing cases, and researching rules, regulations, and laws. High-level judges, often referred to as “presiding judges,” consider changing needs of the court and community, and establish or modify court rules and procedures to help the court run smoothly. Judges supervise court clerks, law clerks, and other court staff, and meet with attorneys to encourage settlement. In some jurisdictions, judges perform marriage ceremonies.

Skills and Qualities of a Judge

While most judges possess law degrees, and have acquired experience as attorneys before taking the bench, this is not required in all jurisdictions. It is important for a judge to have a good understanding of criminal and civil legal procedure, the court system in general, and the rules of the jurisdiction. Individuals with solid analytical, logical reasoning, and critical decision-making skills make the best judges, as they are required to render sound judgments on a wide variety of issues. Excellent research and writing skills enable a judge to write concise opinions, procedures, memoranda, and other legal documents.

Public Expectations of a Judge

A judge is a public official who has a responsibility to make sound judgments, both professionally, and in his or her personal life. Because of this, a judge must be careful to exhibit high standards of integrity in all facets of life. The public keeps a wary eye on those passing judgment over their communities, and generally expect irreproachable behavior from their judges.

The public expects a judge to be open-minded and fair in making sound decisions that will hold up to scrutiny. To do this, a judge must listen well, and be able to ask pertinent questions to determine the truth of an issue that is embroiled in the legal process. While some judges find it difficult to maintain a courteous demeanor in all cases, year after year, this is an important skill in maintaining a reputation of open-mindedness and professionalism. A judge should also, however, be able to take a firm hand to gain control over an ill-mannered or insolent litigant, a disrespectful spectator, or a rambling attorney.

Examples of Judicial Misconduct

Judges are expected to conduct themselves in a professional and orderly manner, adhering to the rules and moral guidelines of their office. The headlines are, unfortunately, ripe with examples of judges at all levels of the court system who have failed this task stunningly.

Low Moral Standards of Wade Harper McCree

Former Circuit Court judge in Wayne County, Michigan, Wade McCree exhibited poor judgement and lace of moral behavior when he sent a photograph of himself posing half nude to a court bailiff. That stunt earned him the nickname “shirtless judge.” Fifty-five year old McCree again showed poor judgment when he told inquiring press “there’s no shame in my game.”

Later, in 2013, a formal complaint was filed against McCree, claiming he had engaged in a sexual relationship with a woman, Geniene LaShay Mott, who was embroiled in a child support case against the father of her child. The complaint claims the pair engaged in sexual acts in a variety of locations, including the judge’s chambers.

The charges leveled against McCree by the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission included his failure to recuse (remove) himself from Mott’s case, engaging in a sexual relationship with Mott while on the bench, in which Mott became pregnant, sending Mott indecent text messages while on the bench, and other incidents of improper conduct during the course of his relationship with Mott.

In rendering its decision, removing McCree from the bench, the Michigan Supreme Court stated:

“…there is not much, if anything, that is more prejudicial to the actual administration of justice than having a sexual relationship with a complaining witness without recusing oneself, … attempting to use the prosecutor’s office as leverage against this now ex-mistress by concocting charges of stalking and extortion against her, and then lying under oath about these matters.”

Domestic Violence Committed by Mark Fuller

On August 9, 2014, U.S. District Court judge Mark Fuller was arrested for domestic violence against his wife, who had sustained injuries when Fuller threw her to the ground, pulled her hair, and kicked her. This was, apparently, Fuller’s reaction to his wife’s confronting him about his having an affair with a law clerk. Fuller was charged only with misdemeanor battery, and spent one night in jail. Fuller had a prior record of domestic violence, however, as his divorce records from a prior marriage describe domestic violence, drug abuse, and extramarital affairs.

A month later, Fuller accepted a plea bargain in which, in exchange for his completion of a 24-week court program, his record would be expunged. Alabama’s congressional delegation did not look favorably on this outcome, and asked Fuller to resign his position.

Educational Requirements to be a Judge

With the exception of some local court jurisdictions, an individual seeking to become a judge must obtain a law degree, as well as quality experience working as an attorney. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the most common requirements to become a judge are a law degree (Juris Doctor), and a license to practice law.

To obtain a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree, the individual must first attend undergraduate school in whatever field of study they like. Most obtain degrees in history, political science, or business. He or she must then attend an American Bar Association (“ABA”) approved law school, which takes three years to complete. Some law schools have part time programs that allow individuals with work or family responsibilities to attend. Such a part time schedule commonly takes four years to complete.

After successful completion of law school, the individual must pass written tests provided by the local bar association, this is called a “bar exam.” The bar exam is an hours-long test that digs into each student’s knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of law, including contracts and tort law, criminal law, and ethics.

Judicial Career Statistics

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the states employing the most judges, in May 2014, include:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the states paying judges the highest wages, in May 2014, include: