Legal Terms and Court Rulings

• The U.S. court system is complex due to dual federalism, with each level of government (state, local, and federal) having its own courts.
• Federal courts try acts that violate federal criminal law.
• State law violations are tried at the local or state level, varying by state.
• Each state possesses its own unique court system, and the federal government also operates courts within each state.
• The majority of criminal cases are tried in state courts, with most systems resembling a hierarchical or pyramid shape.

Lower Courts

• Lower courts, at the base of the hierarchy, handle mostly traffic violations and misdemeanor cases.
• Names for lower courts include municipal courts, police courts, and traffic courts, but this varies widely.
• Many specialized courts, such as juvenile courts, exist at the lower level.
• Lower courts can sentence violators to jail and impose large fines.
• These courts conduct arraignments and preliminary hearings for felony cases before transferring them to higher courts.
• "Assembly line" justice in many municipal courts is a source of criticism.

Courts of General Jurisdiction

• Courts of general jurisdiction hear felony cases, operating more formally than lower courts.
• These courts are called district courts or circuit courts, depending on the state.
• Only a small fraction of cases filed by prosecutors result in a full trial.
• Most cases end in a plea bargain.

Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction

• Dissatisfied parties can appeal to higher appellate courts.
• The number of appellate court levels depends on the state's population.
• Smaller states allow appeals directly to the state supreme court.
• Larger states have intermediate appeals courts to reduce the supreme court's workload.
• Supreme courts have broad discretion in deciding which cases to hear.

The Federal Court System

• The federal court system's organization closely mirrors that of state courts.

U.S. District Courts

• The 94 U.S. District Courts serve as the trial courts of general jurisdiction at the federal level.
• Every state has at least one district court, and some have several.
• Criminal defendant filings in 2013 fell to 91,266, the lowest since 2008.
• Drug offenses constituted the largest percentage of filings in 2013, totaling 32% of all criminal cases.
• There has been a decline in federal prosecutions for marijuana-related offenses due to shifts in enforcement strategies.
• Immigration, fraud, and firearms-related crimes make up the remaining bulk of cases.

U.S. Courts of Appeals

• The U.S. Courts of Appeals hear appeals from the district courts.
• Appeals judges sit in panels of three; rare and important cases are heard en banc (all judges in the circuit).
• The courts of appeals lack the Supreme Court's discretion in selecting cases.
• Filings in the 12 regional courts of appeals fell 2% to 56,475.
• Decreases occurred in criminal appeals, appeals of administrative agency decisions, and civil appeals.
• Growth was reported for prisoner petitions, bankruptcy appeals, and original proceedings.

The U.S. Supreme Court (USSC)

• The Supreme Court is at the top of the U.S. court hierarchy.
• It hears appeals from both federal and state courts.
• The Supreme Court exercises certiorari power, choosing which cases to review.
• Selected cases usually have broad national implications.
• Most Supreme Court decisions either affirm or reverse lower court decisions.

Problems with The Courts

• High case volume presents a significant problem for the courts.
• In 2013, the U.S. district courts had 363,914 combined filings for civil cases and criminal defendants.
• Over 10.6 million cases were processed in state trial courts in 2009.
• Tough drug sanctions have increased the caseload for the courts.
• Because most state courts are perpetually behind on hearing cases, there is an increasing interest in how to reduce caseloads and speed up the flow of cases.
• Efforts to reduce caseloads include drug courts, which sentence nonviolent, first-time offenders to drug treatment rather than probation or prison.
• Drug courts aim to reduce recidivism and the caseload of regular courts, proving more effective than traditional methods.

Speeding Up Court Processing

• Public dissatisfaction arises when case resolution becomes lengthy due to high case volume.
• The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 sets time standards for indictments, arraignments, and criminal prosecutions at the federal level.
• This Act stipulates a maximum of thirty days from arrest to arraignment and an additional seventy days from indictment to trial.
• Every state has enacted some form of speedy trial law.

The Role of Judges

• Trial court judges' responsibilities extend throughout the criminal court process, from evaluating probable cause to issuing warrants, deciding bail, ruling on motions, hearing pleas, refereeing trials, and passing sentences.
• Judges balance protecting the rights of the accused with public interest.
• Appeals court judges act as legal scholars who research, clarify, and write opinions on legal issues.
• Federal judges tend to come from families with a history of public service and attend top law schools.
• Some critics argue that federal judges are selected from the social and cultural elite because of their wealthy backgrounds.
• State-level judges are often drawn from the dominant political party in that state.
• Methods of selecting judges vary by state, including partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, appointment systems, and merit systems.

Judicial Decision Making

• Judges make decisions with enormous impact on defendants' lives.
• Trial court judges often make decisions instantly, while appeals court judges have more time to ponder issues.
• Decisions are tempered by stare decisis, with judges following precedent when available.
• Political values often influence decisions, although these are not as readily recognized as legal tradition.
• Judges have significant power, which sometimes leads to unethical and illegal actions.
• Misconduct undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
• Each state has mechanisms to address unethical conduct by judges.
• At the federal level, judges can only be removed by impeachment by the Senate.

Judicial Independence

• The judiciary should be independent of other government branches
• Judicial independence allows judges to preside over cases in a just and impartial way.
• Courts serve as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches.
• The executive branch has power of appointment over judges, while the legislative branch controls the budget of the courts.
• Federal judges, once appointed, have life tenure to ensure they can rule impartially without fear of losing their jobs.

Juveniles and the Courts

• Courts significantly influence the juvenile justice system at both the juvenile court and appellate levels.
• Juvenile court judges have expanded roles, often overseeing court operations and probation departments.
• In small jurisdictions, judges manage fiscal matters.
• The beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of the juvenile judge impact other criminal justice agencies and the community.
• Judges must balance the best interests of the juvenile with those of the victim and community and also must uphold the constitutional rights of all parties.
• Constitutional guarantees of due process must be upheld in juvenile proceedings.

The Supreme Court & Juveniles

• Historically, juvenile proceedings rarely reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
• The Warren court in the 1960s issued several cases that altered the juvenile justice system.
• Kent v. United States (1966) ruled that juveniles must be afforded due process rights in court proceedings.
• In re Gault (1967) ruled that juveniles must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults.
• Breed v. Jones (1975) ruled that trying a child in adult court after finding them delinquent in juvenile court amounts to double jeopardy.
• Schall v. Martin (1984) ruled that the preventive detention of a juvenile does not violate due process.
• Doe v. Renfrow (1981) upheld a lower court decision that a search of schoolchildren for narcotics by a drug dog is not a rights violation.
• New Jersey v. TLO (1985) set the evidentiary standard for searches of students by school officials at reasonable suspicion.
• Qutb v. Strauss (1993) held that curfew laws were constitutional because they are designed to protect the community.

Definitions and explanations of legal terminologies, court jurisdictions, and landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases, including 'Doe v. Renfrow' and 'Kent v. United States'. It also touches on judicial independence, ethics, and the handling of cases in different court settings.