The Dual Court System

The Dual Court System
The court structure in the United States is known as a duel court system. A dual court system
consists of two separate court systems. The first system consists of state and local courts (Bohm &
Haley, 2014). The second system consists of federal courts (Bohm & Haley, 2014). Several different
types of courts make up America's entire court system. The state court system consists of Appellate
Court of Last Resort–also referred to as the State Supreme Court, Intermediate Courts of Appeals,
Trial Courts of General Jurisdiction, and Trial Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (Bohm & Haley,
2014). Both state trial courts are local courts. The federal court system consists of the U.S. Supreme
Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, and U.S. District Courts (Bohm & Haley, 2014). The U.S. Courts of
Appeals for Federal Court and the U.S. Court of Military Appeals make up the entire U.S. Courts of
Appeals (Bohm & Haley, 2014). U.S. Court of Military Appeals is responsible for military court
reviews (Bohm & Haley, 2014). The U.S. District Courts consist of the U.S. Tax Court, U.S. Court
of International Trade, U.S. Claims Courts, and U.S. Court of Veterans Affairs (Bohm & Haley,
2014). Each court resides over specific disputes. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
According to Bohm & Haley (2014), these purposes are as follows: 1. "do justice" 2. "appear to do
justice" by providing due process of law 3. "to provide a forum where disputes between people can
be resolved justly and peacefully" 4. "to censure wrongdoing" 5.
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Australian Court System
Court is one of the more complicated methods for resolving disputes, but is also regarded as one
with the highest quality of decision making. It is defined as an official forum where two parties
come and present their arguments to a juridical party who administers justice. The Australian court
system is hierarchical, where some courts are more important than others and handle different cases
depending upon its severity.
One of the reasons that courts are a popular option for solving disputes are because cases are
handled by legally qualified and experienced professionals. Judges must undergo over 10 years of
legal education and training, as well as display integrity and strong ethics before being appointed.
Lawyers are also required to undertake strict exams before representing their party in court and
assisting with professional advice. The legal advice and setting of a court gives smaller parties a
chance to stand against large corporations, like in the 2012 case between the Samaan family and
KFC. The victim claimed that their young daughter was left severely brain damaged from
salmonella poisoning after consuming KFC and the court ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
The majority of jurors are also Caucasian, which can affect their judgement due to subconscious
bias harboured towards minorities, especially Aboriginals, which was evident in the 2001 case
against a 15 year old Aboriginal boy, Johnny Warramarrba. He was arrested for petty crimes and
theft which totalled less than $100, and was sentenced to service in a youth detention centre where
he committed suicide. Inquiry into his case after his death revealed that he was eligible for a
diversionary program that would have kept him in his community and may have saved his life. The
court had failed him as neither he nor his lawyer were informed of this

The Federal Court System
Our court system is made up of the main levels, district court (trial court), circuit courts (first level
of appeal), and the US Supreme Court (the final level of appeal). It consists of ninety district courts,
thirteen circuit courts, and one Supreme Court. The federal courts work differently than most of the
state courts. With the main difference being the types of cases they hear. For example, kidnapping,
crimes committed on federal property, threatening the U.S. President etc. It is the starting point for
federal statutes, Constitution and treaties, known as "The original jurisdiction". Our federal courts
were established during the Constitutional Convention, September of 1787 held in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The judicial

The Court Of The Federal Court System
Heber Concepcion
Courtroom #3: United States District Court, Southern District
The third and final court visited was the United States District Court. The United States district
courts are the trial courts of the federal court system. Within limits set by Congress and the
Constitution, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal cases,
including both civil and criminal matters. Everyday hundreds of people across the nation are
selected for jury duty and help decide some of these cases. There are 94 federal judicial districts,
including at least one district in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Three
territories of the United States –– the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
I was the sole public member here at this specific court, which made it seem a bit more daunting
than usual. This court was probably where I had an awe moment for myself. The room was filled
with marble and gold trimming everywhere. The official courtroom was carpeted with wood
everywhere. The judge on duty, Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein had not yet arrived when I was
there. Outside the courtroom, counsels and attorneys are discussing and/or gossiping at the moment
before the case starts. The atmosphere of this courtroom is exactly what I expected a courtroom to
be like. This feeling was not met in the NY criminal and civil courts. One thing that was noticed was
that there were zero court officers in the courtroom so far which seemed very odd, given the
daunting nature of the whole room. The transcriber, more commonly known as the court reporter,
arrived. The lack of my phone gives me no sense of time. It felt like I was there for about 5 minutes
but it was more like ten to fifteen minutes had passed. There was an abnormal lack of modern feel,
but certainly no lack of modern devices. The courtroom that I was in had several computers, which
were equipped with some of the latest software made for them.
The case presented is United States of America v. Local 1804–1, which is a union. This hearing was
for oral arguments only. There was a significant sense of order in the room. Attorneys have a respect
for the courtroom. Proceedings at the United States District

Legal Principles Of The Court System
The court system is a significant role in maintaining proper justification for crimes. As with any
large organization there is a hierarchical structure, the court system is no different. One main
difference is the federal, state and local court systems have a different hierarchy. In this paper one
will get a better understanding of the hierarchical structure of the different court systems.
Let's start with the hierarchical structure of the federal court system. Here is an image that describes
the structure: (http://www.catea.gatech.edu/grade/legal/structure.html )
As we see on the bottom of the structure we have the District Courts. Here in the District Court the
main focus is to handle disputes by determining which part involved ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
However, there is no guarantee that a case will be heard in the Supreme Court. Now we will look
into the hierarchical structure of the State of New Jersey court system. (this includes the
local/municipal court role as well) Each state may have a different approach to their hierarchical
structure, considering I live in New Jersey I chose their court structure. Here is an image of the State
of New Jersey court system structure: (http://www.courtstatistics.org/Other–
Pages/State_Court_Structure_Charts/New–Jersey.aspx )
On the bottom of the structure we have municipal courts and tax courts. The tax court is just as the
title says. In this court, they handle tax cases, this court also excludes the use of a jury. Municipal
courts have no jury and they can primarily hear violations within the municipality. They also can
hear felony and misdemeanor cases as well. As seen in the image the municipal court can go up the
hierarchy. Following the municipal court we have the Superior Court. Within, in this court most
cases have a jury. Cases heard within in this area are anything from civil cases and mall claim cases
up to exclusive domestic relations. Moving up the system we next have the Appellate Division of
Superior Court. This court hears appeals from the Superior Court and Municipal Court level. When
an individual or their representative feel the case should have gone one way vs another they can put
in an appeal. This is where the

The Court System Of England And Wales
The court system in England and Wales means a thousand years of history and development
throughout different political and social climates. This essay will provide a brief history of this
evolution and evaluation of some advantages and disadvantages of a modern jury system.
According to The Open University (2014, section 10.1), under Anglo–Saxon domination all disputes
were resolved in local courts called 'moots'. These courts later developed and became Magistrates'
Courts, still keeping their local function. Majority of all criminal cases are heard there, however the
courts can only decide on 'summary' or 'triable either way' offences, referring the most serious files
to the Crown Court.
Crown courts, which superseded the courts of assize and quarter sessions, were established under
the Courts Act 1971 to improve efficiency of the existing criminal justice system. The latter were
local courts of the Queen 's Bench Division, which served a number of circuits by assembling juries
and hearing cases not serious enough to go before a High Court judge.
The Norman Conquest made significant changes to the English law by establishing the 'Curia Regis',
the court which was ruled by the king and his appointed judges. Some key institutions of Parliament,
such as the common law courts including King's (Queen's) Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, and
the Court of Chancery evolved from the 'Curia Regis'. The law became to be more centralised
through a unified court system to a national

Juvenile Justice System And The Juvenile Court System
The juvenile justice system varies from the adult justice system in many ways. For more than a
century, the states have believed that the juvenile justice system was a means to ensuring public
safety, by establishing and implementing a system that responds to children as they are maturing
into adulthood. Today's youths, however, are increasingly committing more serious crimes that in
turn are raising the public's criticism concerning the modern juvenile justice system. There are those
who are in support of keeping every juvenile I juvenile court system and then there are the others
who argue if juveniles were held to stricter standards they would not become repeat offender in the
system and eventual end up in the adult corrections system. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The Department of Justice confirms juveniles are entitled to Fifth Amendment protection under the
Constitution, against self–incrimination in juvenile proceedings. This is despite the nature of the
crime whether it is of criminal or non–criminal nature of those proceedings. (In re Gault, 1967)
Substance, not form, controls in determining the relevance of the Fifth Amendment to proceedings
not labeled criminal. Therefor since a juvenile defendant 's liberty is at stake, the Fifth Amendment
would apply. The next question that then arises is does the juvenile have the mental capacity to
understand their Fifth Amendment rights, that was explained to them when the officer first read
them their Miranda Admonishment. Under California law, prosecutors who allege that a minor
under the age of 14 has committed a criminal act, the courts must establish that the child can
distinguish between right and wrong. The minor must also know what it means to break the law or
commit a crime. (In re Gladys R., 1970)
Juveniles are not necessarily given every right afforded to adult criminal defendants. Let's take a
look at the right to "a trial by jury". Juveniles do not have the right to a jury trial instead a Judge
decides the juvenile cases. (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971) Taking into account that this is a worst
case scenario, a minor adjudicated in juvenile court can face being sentenced to the

England Court System
The court system in England and Wales originated during the Anglo – Saxon period. Back then local
men gathered in Moot Courts, deciding on issues in line with local customs. Piece by piece the
system became more sophisticated, which can be seen clearly after a brief overview on its evolution
and evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages.
After the Norman Conquest, certain cases were brought before the King (Coram Rege in Latin),
later the King started to delegate the power to administer Royal Justice to a council. This council
was known as the King 's Court (Curia Regis in Latin), which later branched into the common–law
courts. At first the Exchequer of pleas, Common Pleas and the King 's Bench, followed by the Court
of Chancery in the mid–14th century. The Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 modernised the court
structure drastically. Introducing, the Supreme Court of Judicature also known as the House of
Lords, as a final court of Appeal above the High Court. Along with the creation of a single Court of
Appeal in Civil matters.
Furthermore, the introduction of a new improved divisional structure for the High Court. This was
finalised in 1881 with the merge of Common pleas and Exchequer into the Queens Bench Division.
The Criminal Appeal Act 1907 recognised the right of appeal in criminal cases and established the
Court of Criminal Appeal.
Continuing the modernisation, the Courts Act 1971 abolished and replaced various courts. At the
same time the Act created the

Court System Paper
Running head: COURT SYSTEM PAPER
Court System Paper
AJS 502 21 May 2013 John V. Baiamonte, Jr. PhD
Florida County Courts The state of Florida 67 County Courts along with the Circuit Courts, Florida
District Court of Appeals and Supreme Court are established via the State Constitution under Article
V titled Judiciary. County Courts Judges differed based on community population and caseload for
each county. Each county court judges must a registered voter of the specified county that are
requesting office of and a member of the Florida Bar for five years; however districts with an
inhabitants of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In circuit courts dealing with criminal cases, the circuit court has original jurisdiction in all felonies
and misdemeanors cases from the identical conditions as an offense that is simultaneously indicted.
Circuit Court cases dealing with legitimacy of tax calculation, actions dealing property titles and
borders or proprietorship of actual assets and other proceedings that are not heard in county court. In
family cases dealing with divorce, guardianship, spousal visits, family altercations, and adolescent
addiction cases will be in circuit court. Appeals from the county court are handled by the circuit
courts with the exception of those cases they may go to the district court of appeals. There are a total
of twelve circuit judges amongst the four counties. District Courts of Appeals All trial court case
that was appealed was never heard by the Supreme Court, but they were look over by a three–judge
panel of the district courts of appeal. Florida did not establish a district court of appeals until 1957.
The State Constitution states that the Legislature must divide the State into appellate court districts
along with the establishment of district court of appeals (DCA) to service each of the five districts.
The five district headquarters are located at Daytona Beach, Lakeland, Miami, Tallahassee, and West
Palm Beach. District Court of

The Canadian Court Systems Should Be Legal
The Canadian Court systems have been in place for hundreds of years, and have been the places
where citizens go to seek justice and safety. Just for a second, imagine that these courts were easy to
get to and navigate, and that citizens would feel as if their entire arguments surrounding the law
were being used to solve disputes. In any society, there will be some form of law, whether it be
simple or complex, and the systems used in the Western World have some fundamental issues and
there could certainly be additions for other forms of dispute regulations. The Canadian Legal system
has been extremely beneficial for many years since it's commencement, but Nils Christie's major
criticisms of the Western Legal Systems should be taken into account and fixed to create a more
useful system for all Canadian citizens. Christie argues that courts are outside of the public centres
so therefore are not accessible to the public, and that once there, the courts are also extremely
difficult to navigate and not friendly to those who do not have a profession in law or government.
He also argues that people that have disputes have to hire lawyers because without a lawyer, a judge
would not regard them highly, and this alternative person uses the legal system to remove a victim
from their own conflict. In addition, when a case is brought to courts, the state takes it over and the
problem is taken away from the victim, making the crime one that was done against the state. Court
systems should

The Adversarial Nature Of The Australian Court System Essay
The adversarial nature of the Australian court system is fundamentally implemented to ensure a fair
and impartial trial for members of the public, yet this is not always the case. Access to justice, and
the courts themselves, are often perceived quite variably depending on an individual's experience
with such institutions. In particular, it is often the disadvantaged in our society, such as those from
low socio–economic backgrounds, youth and Indigenous Australians, who are the most neglected
and disheartened by fair access to the court systems. However, this is not to say that the system
specifically works in favor of educated, white individuals. The systematic approach to court
processes, consisting of the apparent impartiality of judges and trials by jury, often impede the
natural course of justice and do not allow for a fair and unbiased trial.
Concepts of 'accessing' and 'achieving' justice and their definitions are often debated and contested.
Achieving and accessing justice may be explained through a segregation of groups. For users of the
justice system, access refers to the capacity to effectively utilise the justice system, whereas for the
general public access to justice refers to the capacity to obtain appropriate information to evaluate
the performance of the legal system and ways in which it operates on their behalf (Martin, 2014).
These definitions reveal that both users of the courts and the general public should be very much
aware of barriers to its access,

The Federal Court System
To properly discuss the history of the Federal Court System in America one must first describe the
functions and responsibilities of the court system. As with anything complex, it starts first from
humble beginnings, and constant adaptations, and in the end you get your final product. This
complexity that is going to be described and explained just so happens to be the American Federal
Court System, this will cover the history, growth and development, as well as the current status of
this intricate system.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system, currently the Supreme Court has nine
Justices who hold meetings in Washington, D.C. There are ninety–four district level trial courts and
thirteen courts of appeals that sit below the Supreme Court. Most importantly Article III of the
United States Constitution placed the actual judicial power to the Supreme Court. In the beginning,
the Judiciary Act of 1789 made it possible for the Supreme Court to be developed, the act also
appointed a Chief Justice and five other associate justices. Over the next eighty years or so, changes
were constantly made to the Federal Court system; due to the Judiciary Act of 1801, the number of
justices were reduced to five which also would include the Chief Justice. From 1802 up until 1863,
four more justices were authorized but, in 1837 the number of justices were reduced from a total of
ten to seven. Finally, in April of 1869 the size of the Supreme Court was raised one final

The Law Of The Court System
Supreme Court cases are always hard to deal with. Courts are always using old cases to help them
with the new cases. Some are the same as the old ones, but the new ones are handled much better
than the old cases mainly because lawyers and judges know how to deal with a specific situation
more. Gideon's Trumpet talks about the highs and lows when dealing with the Supreme Court
system. This book focuses on the fair and unfairness of the court system and how Clarence Earl
Gideon's case was handled by those in control. Gideon's Trumpet discusses a trial that may or may
not have been done fairly. Clarence Earl Gideon believes that he was denied due process of law
because he was not appointed a judge. As some may not, it is always protocol for the defendant to
have a judge, does not matter if it is the best lawyer or the worst. Gideon filed his appeal and won.
The process was long; it took thirty days for the opposing side to reply. Judges are allowed to review
both sides to see exactly what is being discussed and if it is worth taking to court. When the reply
had finally come in, on April 9, within the thirteen–page document states, "Gideon did not have the
right to counsel under the rules of Betts vs Brady." Betts vs Brady is a case that was tried almost
seventy–four years ago. The defendant was the denied the right to an attorney by law enforcement
and by the judge. The Supreme Court had taken their sixth amendment from them. Gideon,
however, fought hard for his appeal.

People Involved In The Court System
There are many people involved in the court system. Below is a list of some of the people you might
meet if you are required to attend court: Accused The person against whom a criminal case is
brought. Sometimes referred to as the defendant. Associate Judge (Supreme Court) The person who
generally carries out the judicial function of hearing and determining issues which arise before and
after trial in civil cases. Associate Judges do not hear trials. Barrister A legal advocate who is briefed
by a solicitor to present the defence or prosecution case in court. Bench clerk (Magistrates',
Coroners and Children's Court) Sits near the magistrate or coroner, and announces the cases and
calls people into court. The bench clerk will direct people

American Court System
The American Court system is based on the English Common Law system. The basic idea is that
there are two sides, the plaintiff and the defendant. In a criminal case, the prosecutor acts as a
plaintiff on behalf of the citizens or state. It is the judge's duty to determine what the law is in
relation to the particular case at hand. It is the jury's duty to determine what the facts are in the case.
The lawyers in the case are charged with representing their respective clients to the very best of their
ability. The goal of this process is justice. In the United States, there are more than 51 different
interpretations of this model. Each of the 50 states has its own rules and procedures. The federal
courts also have their own rules. However, for the most part, they are all very similar. ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Once this case is heard and a decision has been made, both the defendant and the plaintiff have the
opportunity to appeal the decision to an Appellate Court. In other words, if they do not like what the
judge and jury decided, they can complain and try to get the decision reversed. They can only appeal
if they believe the judge made a legal error. Their complaints won't be heard if the reason is solely
because they did not like the result.
Unlike English–speaking countries, which use a system of " Common Law ", France has a system of
" Civil law ". Common law systems are largely based on consensus. Civil law systems are similar
Common Law. Common law forms the basis of the law in most English–speaking countries. Civil
law systems in most of the rest of the world work. In line with the democratic principle of the
separation of powers, the French judiciary although its members are state employees is independent
of the

USpreme Court System
When it comes to the United States or Texas and you want to find the rules and regulations that are
carried out into that environment, here you can find almost every law in the Constitution. Wither it
is the US Constitution or the Texas Constitution the laws will be found there and they were all set
for a reason that happened in the past. The differences between the two are the history on why the
laws were set and who it covers (Ginsberg, B., 2012). The similarities are they both are powerful
and both have a Bill of Rights (Ginsberg, B., 2012). They are many more differences behind the two
Constitution/government.
Supreme Court Other government differences you can find between the US government and the
Texas government is their court systems. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
There are courts leading to the highest (Supreme Court) so that way every case is heard fairly. With
Texas following the US Supreme Court is a good structure for not only the government but for
citizens as well. Not only does the government get to divide all they cases between courts and
importance but the people also get a right to ask to go higher, from state Supreme Court to federal
Supreme Court. The people also have a choice to appeal, with Courts of Appeal. The way the court
systems are set up throughout both the federal and state systems are confusing but it is a better
system. If the state or nation only had a single court everything would be corrupt and out of order.
We would only have one court system dealing with murder, marriage, bankruptcy, and international
trade that would confuse everyone. Also with mixing all kinds of criminals together can possible get
to the judge, when hearing different kinds of casing back to back can interfere with the verdict.
When hearing murder case than hearing a small robbery can right after, the judge can easily be more
lenient with the robbery case because it isn't as big as a crime as murder. I believe the way the Texas
Supreme Court it set up is a good

Compare And Contrast Wisconsin's Courts And The Federal...
V=Wisconsin's court system and the Federal Court system are similar in structure, having a lower
level court, a Court of Appeals, and a Supreme Court. Wisconsin's lowest court is a municipal court,
which can covers civil and criminal cases. These courts cover violations and offenses and a judge
decides based on statutes. The next court level In Wisconsin is Circuit Courts; they cover criminal
and civil cases. They are divided into jurisdictions and hear small claims, criminal, and juvenile
cases. These cases usually have a jury and are determined by state statutes. No Federal Court
parallels the lower state courts; instead, they have District Courts. District courts hear cases both
civil and criminal and have no appellate jurisdiction.

The Court System: The Role Of Courts In The United States
The Court System Throughout life people learn about rules and laws that they are suppose to follow
in their lifetime. These laws are here and were made to help everyone as an individual to stay out of
trouble and to help keep them on the right road in life. Without all of these laws and regulations
people would go around doing everything that they feel like, whether good or bad. A complex Court
System helps the country and the citizens. Without a complex system it would be easier for people
to get by with things and not get in trouble for anything; this would make the world worse because
people would go around doing anything that person wishes to do no ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Disputes between people can be taken care of without people having to try and settle things
themselves. This helps violence and other crimes from taking place. It is a more civilized way of
fixing problems. Without the court being here to help people then everything would just be chaos.
The court system is complex for many different reason but all of the reason are here to help every
individual be fairly treated. In a world where every person is treated the same then there will be less,
crime and violence. Without the court system being so complex then it would be tough to achieve
this as a country. The courts help smaller communities come together. The closer the communities
are the more successful they can be in their efforts to grow and become

The Court System Is An Impartial Judiciary
The courts system is an impartial judiciary body trusted to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty,
treat those who come in contact with the system with respect, and appropriate judicial resources
wisely. Currently, the courts face many issues that may interfere with its obligation to do justice.
These issues will be addressed, along with future issues facing courts and court administrators,
future management issues and trends regarding language interpretation services, and the past,
present, and future impact that victim rights laws have on court proceedings.
The courts system handles many cases. Each year the court caseloads increase. Some of these cases
are not able to go to trial in a timely manner because many cases are backlog. ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Lawyers said a majority of cases were pending because the litigants had not paid their
representative. In some cases, the client wanted the case to remain undecided, sometimes the case
required too much time because it was complex, and sometimes the judges was so busy that they did
not have time to record witness statements (Yasif, 2016). Many cases are postponed because public
prosecutors have too many cases and not enough time or staff to take care of them in a timely
fashion. Also lawyers are able to make a number of motions that add more time to pre–trial actions,
such as a motion of continuance, which allows the defendant to make a choice to go to trial at a later
time.
Plea– bargaining is another concern the courts deal with. About 90% of people indicted for felony
crimes plead guilty (O'Conner, 2010). During the plea bargaining process, prosecutors offer
sentencing compromises to encourage defendants to plead guilty and waive their right to a jury trial
or threaten them with increased charges or a more severe sentence if they do choose to go to trial.
Some people refer plea–bargaining to an unnecessary evil because the process causes the defendant
to surrender their constitutional rights such as the privilege against self–incrimination and the right
to a jury trial. There are many concerns in the courts regarding plea bargaining. It has been
considered as a way of the guilty avoiding

Drug And The Drug Court System Essay
"A drug court is a special court given responsibility to handle cases involving substance–abusing
offenders through comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services and immediate
sanctions and incentives" ("what are drug courts?"). "These offenders have alcohol, drug addiction,
and depending problems. Drug courts keep individuals in treatment long enough for it to work,
while supervising them closely" ("what are drug courts?"). "In 1989, the first drug court was built in
Miami–Dade County, Florida. The Miami–Dade drug court sparked a national revolution that has
forever changed our justice system" ("what are drug courts?"). "Circuit court Judge Herbert M.
Klein had become troubled by the negative effects of drug offenses on Dade County. He became
determined to address the problem caused by widespread drug use. This first drug court became a
model program for the nation" ("Drug Courts", 2005). The main purpose of the drug court system is
mainly to utilize the programs set in place to help serve the community better, and to deal with drug
offenders in the local community. Each offender, whether they are a drug user or another offense,
have drug courts that specifically tailor to the needs and certain interventions needed. Drug courts
aim to monitor drug addicted criminal offenders and provide them treatment. It also helps these
individuals from obtaining any more drugs, committing crimes due to drug use, helps them to
complete their education, and helps them to

The Court System Of The Criminal Trial
This report is on the account of a trial heard in Swansea Crown Court on 8 March 2016. The
purpose of the report is to show significant knowledge in the application of relevant areas of law to
its involvement in the criminal trial. In accordance, the concept of criminal law, English legal
system, function and structure of the court system, roles of court personnel, the procedure of the
criminal trial, strength and weakness of the court system, and proposed reform of the courts have
been put into consideration.
The court system of the United Kingdom is considered in hierarchical levels from the Supreme
Court to the Court of Appeal to High Court, Crown and County Courts to the Magistrate Court. The
courts have their jurisdictions of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On arrival, the security ensured that all belongings are checked in order to properly safeguard the
court environment. Also, I was given the list of cases to be heard and attended the case of Evans
Ashley J. who was up for trial.
The trial was a private hearing. This means that members of the public, press or unrelated audience
were not allowed to sit for the hearing of the trial. This system is advantageous as to ensure that
publicity of the case would not, in turn, defeat the object of the hearing and so the courts considered
it essential for the jury to be uninfluenced by the public to avoid any form of bias in the interest of
the justice system. Also, due to our academic involvement in the trial, the ushers, as well as the
judge, explained that the case is neither to be disclosed nor discussed to anyone external but only
within the sphere of academic purposes. Accordingly, the only people present were; the judge, the
jury, 2 clerks, the defendant, his advocate, a member of the Youth Defending Team, the prosecutor,
the prosecutor's solicitor and the dock officer.
The trial involved a defendant who is a minor and was charged with assault of grievous bodily harm
under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was duly released from the dock;
an enclosed space at the far end of the court where the accused sits or may stand during the trial,
because of his age

Court Systems
Court System
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to make the reader aware about the significance of the history of
judicial system prevailing within the premises of United States. This paper intends to explore the
Court System of United States. The major historical developments in the courts of United States will
be discussed. Moreover, the rationale of the dual court system of the United States will be outlined.
This paper will also explore the correlation between the historical developments and the dual court
system of the United States.
Discussion
The development of the state courts within United States can be traced back from the colonial
period. Every state in United States organizes its court system independently. ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Federal court systems are assumed to be easier to understand. The federal judiciary involves the
highest court of the country which is 'Supreme Court' of United States. The Supreme Court is
exclusively utilized by the federation and it is clearly provided by the constitution. Moreover,
federal judiciary also provides certain courts like Court of Federal Claims and the Tax Courts
(Walker, 1980).
The State Courts System, on the other hand, are extremely diverse. None of the states provide
similar judicial practices. State Courts include inferior courts which are further classified as
magistrate courts, municipal courts, county courts and many others. There are also some superior
courts at the state levels known as circuit or district courts (James, 2009).
Correlation between Historical Development and Dual Court System
The dual court system of United States is clearly a product of the historical development. The
historical development in the judicial aspects of court systems adopted by the thirteen colonies
provides the basis of this distinctive and dual court system. The federal government and thus the
federal courts handle the issues related to the national interests. On the other hand, state
governments and eventually state courts are also responsible to cater to the issues at state level.
However, one state is not allowed to get involved in the matters of others (James, 2009).
The historical developments in the United States Courts and

Court Trials Of Crime: The Judicial System
Unquestionably, televising court trials of crime has become an emerging trend among Western
countries, for acquainting the public with the effectiveness of judiciary system.Although this system
has a plethora of benefits ,its aftermath cannot be denied However, I firmly believe that the benefits
of this system supersede its drawback. To commence on,one of the major advantages of opening
court room to the public is to allow the rights of public information. Clearly, it is the need of the
public to identify and supervise the entire judiciary system .As a result ,of this people can
understood that the legal system is free from corruption or not.An ideal example is the judiciary in
Scotland where,the court trials are broad casting through

Complex Court System
There are two court systems that make up a complex judicial system in the United States of
America; these are the States courts and Federal courts. The system is designed to interpret the US
constitution to the citizens. The outcomes of the Federal and the States courts' cases vary depending
on the type of the case. To understand how the court system works and the outcome of court cases, it
is important to focus on a court case sample. The felonies case of Illinois versus Wardlow filed in
2000 describes the case of Chicago police officers who arrested Wardlow after they find him with a
gun in a crime–prone area. In their course of routine patrols of the said high–crime area, the police
converge on Wardlow who was carrying an opaque bag. On ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The FOID Act works in that state alone and would not hold in a federal court because no one is
prohibited from owning a gun except as restricted by the 1968 Gun Control Act under Federal laws
(Scheb, 2015).
Trial Courts are allowed to handle a number of cases in which a judge or the jury listens to
testimonies and evidence, and passes a verdict in relation to the facts provided. It is within the
jurisdiction of the court to handle all civil cases pertaining to probate, family, juvenile, among
others, criminal cases including infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies, appeals of civil cases
dealing with less than $25000, infraction appeals, and misdemeanor cases (Smith, 2003). Focusing
on the case of Illinois versus Wardlow, it was a case of a felony which is within the Chicago's Trial
Court

Essay On The Federal Court System
The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a
matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The
path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process.
Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are
clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the
jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial
evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The writ of certiorari is an order to a lower court to deliver the records of a particular case to be
reviewed for legal errors. The support of four justices is needed for certiorari and few cases ever
satisfy this requirement. The Supreme Court's decision to accept a case is a very lengthy and
complex process. A brief is used to explain why the Courts should rule in favor of their client. This
brief contains facts about the case and presents evidence to the Supreme Court to affirm the lower
court's verdict. The next stage involved in a case is an oral argument, in which each attorney
presents their positions and answers the justice questions. It is very important to the outcome of a
case and allows the justices to better understand the heart of the case. Following the oral argument,
the courts discuss the case through conferences. In the book, it says "the Court discusses the cases
on Wednesday or Fridays" (263). After a decision has been reached, the majority is assigned to a
write opinion. The assignment of the opinion can really make a huge impact on the interpretation of
a

Court Systems
When the founding fathers of the United States began to conceive the notion of how the nation's
legal system should work, they were determined we should have a country that operated differently
and more effectively than the one left behind in the days of British control. They decided that states
should have the power to make and govern their own laws and also the ability to enforce those laws.
This did not eliminate the need for federal court systems, however, and so the dual court system was
born. The dual court system is the formal name for the way our country's legal system works. The
dual courts it refers to are the federal and state court systems. The state court system is constructed
of local and state courts that are under the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Like the state court system, the federal court system also has its foundations in the United States
Constitution and in colonial law. Specifically, Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution
gives the federal courts jurisdiction over federal laws and treaties (Schmalleger, 2009). In general,
this means that federal courts have purview over cases that cross between states or have clear federal
jurisdiction such as terrorism cases or cyber crime. In the federal court system, there is only one of
the three tiers that is actually mandated by United States Constitution. This is the Supreme Court of
the United States. It was formed in 1869 and has always had one Chief Justice and eight Associate
Justices. As the name suggests, the Supreme Court is the final and "supreme" word on any case that
it hears. The Supreme court rules on appeals and also has jurisdiction over certain proprietary cases
like those involving high ranking diplomats of both the United States and other foreign nations
(Supreme Court of The United States, 2011). The other two tiers of the federal court system are the
federal district courts and the court of appeals. The kind of cases handled by the federal district
courts are cases relating to alleged Constitutional violations, maritime cases, cases that directly
involve a state, cases involving the federal government, and cases that include foreign governments
or citizens. The

Court Systems
The U.S. Federal Court system I have chosen the United States Federal Court System as my topic of
research. I believe the U.S Federal Court System is paramount to our criminal justice system. Today
the Federal Court System is a complex structure of courts and actors working together in an
imperfect process to deliver justice. Throughout the years there's been controversy and debate
between the rights of state and federal courts. However, as the dual process evolved they became
dependent on each other. Without one or the other, the system will not function properly. The
Federal Courts have been a controversial issue since the 18th century. The two landmark decisions
that are well known are the Article III of the U.S Constitution and ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Since you cannot legally be punished in another state for a crime committed somewhere else, the
state does have the option to extradite that criminal and surrender their rights of a criminal accused
and send them to the state that they were originally charged. This can also occur outside of the
country, for example if someone commits murder in the United States then flees to Mexico, the U.S.
will request that the jurisdiction return this offender back to the U.S. and not have them punished
outside of the country. Within jurisdiction there is also personal jurisdiction and hierarchical
jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction refers to the courts power over an individual person or
corporation. An example would be if a person accused of fraudulent crimes or crime committed
through the internet, meaning that they committed the crime but were not physically present when
the crime was committed. Hierarchical jurisdiction refers to difference in the courts functions and all
the responsibilities. This is divided into two types, original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction.
Original means that a court has the authority to try a case and decide the results. Appellate
jurisdiction means that courts had to power to review cases that have already been decided by other
courts, but they believe there is a reason to re try it. Appellate courts often have limited

Problem Solving Courts In The State Court System
In the typical state court system has several levels on complexity. The trials that take place in this
setting are typically limited jurisdiction. This court system is the state's highest court system. All
court–associated cases within the state are leveled into the state court system. All state courts have
varying jurisdiction. In these minimal crime cases, the judge, rarely a jury, does the ruling on these
trials. Preliminary beginnings, such as arraignments, bail hearings, and preliminary hearings, happen
in state courts as well. There are problem–solving courts that help to resolve the case before it is
taken to trial. Some examples of these courts would be, drugs, guns, juvenile, domestic, and mental
health courts. The states highest

The Canadian Court System Sentencing Procedure
We believe that our judicial system does not support the rights guaranteed in Canadian charter rights
and freedom and focus on legal guilt over factual guilt. The Canadian court system sentencing
procedure see' over both sides of the story carefully but court focus on proving suspect guilt rather
then innocence. Our judicial systems currently have many flaws and it's clearly noticeable in some
situations. There have been a lot of cases where our judicial system failed to provide justice to the
victim or guaranteed rights to society. Our main law that has been compromised in years is the
privacy law. Fifteen years ago privacy was not as important as it today, the main reason for that is
technology. As science advance it came up with all these new gadgets such as cell, computer and
tables and with all technology came the rise social media. We now have Facebook, Twitter,
Istagram, and many more online social media sites that people uses. Our law says that all of our
private information cannot be disclosed to government unless someone is a threat but these rights
have been violated multiple times. The first time it was an issue was in G20 summit, June 2010.
Lately is have also been an issue in Canadian spy companies. Also government recently passed the
bill c–150, which clearly violates our charter rights.
To begin with, G20 summit took place in Downtown Toronto in June 2010. Police started to violate
charter rights by taking peoples private information and unreasonable search

Functions Of The Criminal Court System
The function of the criminal courts in society is to control social order and protect the community.
The criminal justice system is always changing because of updated laws. The criminal court has five
components; the judge, the prosecutor, defendant lawyer, the defendant and the juror. Each
component works together to provide the best result for both defendant and society. There are a few
models inside the criminal court system that help depict the usefulness of how the courts work. Two
of these models are the adversarial model and the second is the consensual model. The adversarial
model is when the prosecutor and the defendant 's lawyer both speak before the judge and jury to
show evidence pertaining to the defendant trying to prove innocence or guilt. In a consensual model,
is where the prosecutor and defendant 's lawyer hash out the charges against the defendant and agree
on an appropriate punishment. (Barken),pg 268 There are two more models inside the criminal court
system that help portray the court 's efficiency this would be Due Process Model and the Crime
Control Model, these solves the predicament confronted by the criminal courts to guarantee a person
freedom and the need to protect the people. These two models comprise of analyzing crime and
permitting the right justice to be conveyed. Due process method was intended to verify defendants
had their rights ensured and that they had a reasonable opportunity to protect themselves in court.
This model assumes that

Court Report On Criminal Justice System Essay
Court Report
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of
JUST–1100–W02 Criminal Justice System & Process
Fall 2016
by
Kelsey Maynard
Table of Contents Court Overview
District Attorney's Office
Six–Member Jury Session
Twelve–Member Jury Session
Traffic Court Sessions
Criminal Court Sessions
Victim–Witness Assistance Program
Conclusion
1 2 3 4 5 6–7 7 7–8 Court Overview
Built during the summer of 2007, the new Worcester Trial Court was developed in downtown Main
Street. This building is the first Comprehensive Justice Center to include all five of the trial court
departments. These following five are the Superior, District, Juvenile, Housing, and Family Court.
The building is the largest facility constructed ever by the state of Massachusetts. After going
through the quick line of security and walking around on each level, I realized that there were
twenty–six courtrooms, including the jury pool, Central Detention Area, District Attorney's Office,
and the Grand Jury Hearing Room. On the first floor, there is also a support services office in which
has court clinics and a drop–off Child Care room. On all floors, there are bulletin boards with court
and hearing times. While I was in the courtroom, I was able to experience great digital and video
evidence presentations.
During this Court House experience, I was able to visit two times within a week to visit, explore,
listen to cases, and be able to

Court System Flaws
The Canadian court system, like anything made by man, has flaws. One of these flaws is the
wrongful conviction of many men and women like David Milgaard and Steven Truscott. These
innocent men spent years of their life behind bars because of the court system, serving the sentence
for a crime they did not commit.
David Milgaard, a sixteen year old boy, was accused for murder and rape of a twenty two year old
nurse, Gail Miller. Before the murder of the nurse, Milgaard and his two friends, Ron Wilson and
Nichol John, had gone on a trip to Alberta. They stopped at a friend's house, Shorty Cadrain, to pick
him up. After returning from their trip to Alberta, Cadrain heard about a two thousand dollar reward
for anyone who had information about ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This flaw affects an individual's life drastically because it causes them to loose so many years of
their life behind prison bars for a crime they did not commit. There are many reasons for why the
Canadian Court system has the flaw of wrongful convictions such as: eyewitness misidentification,
where the witness may claim to have seen something but their minds understand the situations
wrongs, or like in Milgaard's case, witnesses may give false eyewitness identification, just like John
did, stating he had seen Milgaard stab the nurse. Error in forensic science is another reason for
wrongful convictions. Just like in Truscott's case, during the time, there was not enough science
knowledge to investigate Lynne Harper's body, and the found information was false evidence. False
testimony is a major factor in wrongful convictions because when someone gives false testimonies,
they make the case even more difficult for the wrongly accused person. In Milgaard's case, his
friends who gave false testimony, switching up the story of what had actually happened the night of
the murder, was a major reason why Milgaard had to serve sentence for a crime he did not commit.
Tunnel vision was a major factor in Truscott's case that caused him to be sentenced. The police only
focused on him as a suspect and did not regard anything else or try to investigate upon anything

Employee Arbitration In The Court System
Executory Arbitration Employment arbitration is on the rise and for good reason. Over the last
twenty–to–thirty years there has been an increase in civil litigation. Unfortunately, the court system
has not met the demand for increased litigation through additional judicial appointments or the
hiring of additional resources to contend with the insurmountable caseloads. Today, the court system
has turned to arbitration as an alternate means of resolution, if for anything else, to reduce the
cumbersome caseloads traditionally associated with litigation. Moreover, companies today are
requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. Unlike the court
system, employers look at employee arbitration agreements ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Understanding the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration versus litigation can educate
employees preparing to sign employer imposed employment agreements. Two–fold, employers
should develop and implement employment agreements that serve the goals and objective of the
company while preserving the rights and protection each employee is afforded under the law. The
arbitration process involves two parties that are in a dispute, and they use an impartial third party to
seek resolution in a private venue. Litigation on the other hand is a formal process, which utilizes a
court–of–law in a public venue. The privacy afforded by arbitration is attractive to employers
because it can keep the subject of the arbitration sealed. However, if an employee's rights are being
violated, it can be difficult for the employee to address the violations. The speed and cost of
arbitration weigh in favor of both parties. Regardless of the situation, it is in the best interest of both
parties to resolve the issue as quickly as possible with minimal costs. On the other hand, litigation
can take months to schedule and cost significantly more money to hear the case tried in court. Based
on these examples, employers will work to develop and implement agreements that focus

The Judicial System Of The Court System
In today's society, the United States court system has a very strict order due to the fact that rules and
regulations used to not be as exclusive as they are now. One of the various steps in the court system
is that of the preliminary hearing and the grand jury. There are three main issues that are
incorporated in the preliminary hearings which include, when it is required, the appropriate standard
to determine if the prosecution has a case, and the procedural rights included at the hearing
(Whitebread and Slobogin, 2008, p. 623). The court system is made up of various aspects of
different regulations but one of the key components is that of the grand jury. The grand jury
continuously changes, but as of now relies more on the prosecutor than it has in the past.
The preliminary hearing is an important part of the judicial system but under the federal constitution
and various state laws, it is not required by the constitution. The defendant also has the right to
counsel under the sixth amendment. Under the preliminary hearing statue, the prosecutor may show
probable cause to arrest and the evidence can also be admissible at trial. The preliminary hearing
typically takes place after the initial appearance, the Gerstein determination, and the bail hearing. In
the preliminary hearing, the judge can also decide if there is enough evidence to send the defendant
to trail. In Lem Woon v. Oregon (1913), the court refused to apply the Fifth Amendment's obligation
that only serious

Court System Research Paper
What are the five courts in New Hampshire's court system? In at least two to three sentences (for
each court), explain the jurisdiction and role of each of these five courts.
Supreme court– Located in concord and hosting five judges. The court handles cases that interpret
the New Hampshire constitution. It also corrects errors in lower courts.
Probate court– Overseas wills of dead peoples that are challenged in court. Can make the decision of
assigning a person a legal guardian to make decisions for. Can commit a person to a state hospital if
the court deems that person a harm to themselves or others.
Superior court– The court where jury trials are held. Holding criminal cases where a person is
judged by a jury of their peers and also civil ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Do you think this would be a career that you would enjoy? Provide both positive and negative
aspects of the job and explain why you would/would not want to serve as a judge in the New
Hampshire courts.
The courts seem very interesting. Judging the innocence of citizens is a very interesting role in
society. The judge holds a lot of power in a society and can make life altering decisions for people
everyday. The judges interviewed seemed very serious and painted a very serious picture of what
happens in a court of law. How the judge has to be well informed both on the case and current and
past laws. This is all very interesting to me and would be a great way to develop a personal
definition of justice. A downside to this is all that hard work it takes but a lot of that hard work is
returned when you make the right decision on a case where someone is being unjust and breaking
the law. Another downside is making decisions in tough cases where helping someone might mean
sending another person to jail for life. I would like to work in this field if given the option but I think
it would require a lot of hard work and dedication to be a judge in a lower or higher court anywhere
in the

4-Tier Court System
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is approximately 3,515 square miles, with a population of
approximately 3,578,056 (Rivera). The purpose of this court system is to ensure the protection of
every citizen's rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, enforce and
interpret the law, and ensure the peaceful resolution of disputes. Additionally, this court system will
be fair, firm, and impartial in its rulings and treatment of all citizens. The judicial system for this
commonwealth, is a 4–tier court system, consisting of a Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District
Courts, and Municipal Courts.
I reviewed the court systems of Alaska, New York, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia and chose to
model Puerto Rico's new state court system off a combination of these court systems. The levels, 4–
tiers, of the court system most closely resemble those of Utah and Alaska with the exception of the
lowest level, the municipal court, which I modeled after New York. I then used the legislative
election processes of that of South Carolina and Virginia for the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeals coupled along with the Partisan Elections, as in New York, for the District and Municipal
Courts. In discussing and explaining this newly created court system, I will begin at its lowest level,
the Municipal Courts, and progress to that of the Supreme Court. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The municipal courts will have jurisdiction over their specific municipality over all minor criminal
and civil trials, including family and juvenile, as well as the authority to set bail, issue warrants and
conduct preliminary hearings. The 78 municipal judges will be elected by its citizens in a partisan
election for a term of 4 years. In order for a candidate to campaign and become elected as a
municipal judge, the must meet the following criteria:
be a resident of both Puerto Rico and the

The United States Court System
The Court System 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. In the
american court room there are several people involved. Some of the most important and lawful
figures include: the judge, who is the main authority and the one responsible for justice. The
prosecuting attorney, responsible for presenting the case against the defendant. The defense counsel,
who is in

An Observation Report On The Court System Essay
For this observation report, I went to the Cobb County Superior Court on October 26, 2016, from
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM. I observed Judge Reuben Green because he was one of the judges
recommended to observe. I decided to observe a court proceeding because I wanted to become less
ignorant about how the court system works. There is not much of drama in my family, or at least the
kids (myself included) are kept away from complicated drama. Accordingly, I have never had any
real–life exposure to the court system before October 26th. All my knowledge about the court
system is what I see on television and small things I learned in school. My favorite show involving
the court system is How to Get Away with Murder, which is about law students who were involved
in different murders and try to hide the evidence.
I had many expectations for this experience. For the entrance of the courthouse, I imagined an
impressive foyer with granite tiles and an information desk right in the middle of the foyer. For the
courtroom, I expected to see a large and spacious room that has a high ceiling with extravagant
granite floor and marble columns on the wall. I imagined hearing the echoes of my heels hitting the
floor as I walked into the room. I also expected to see long, wooden benches for everyone, a podium
in the middle of the room, and the judge's seat high and grand for everyone to see. Now, looking
back at my original expectations, it seems like I wanted to walk into the Basilica du Sacré Cœur

The Court System Is Not Perfect
Our US court system is not perfect, it is like a mirror that has some scratches on the surface. With
some hard work and the right tools, the mirror can be fixed. Jennifer Murphy and Adam Benforado
talk about how our court system is flawed. Murphy talks about drug courts and how they are
affecting our court system. Benforado talks about the individuals involved in the courtroom and how
their mistakes flaw the court system. Though both Jennifer Murphy and Adam Benforado do talk
about ways to fix the systems too. First Unfair, when reading this book, Benforado blames the
people for the system being flawed. When talking about dishonesty "...when our actions are at odds
with our positive self–image: (we) trick ourselves into thinking we're not ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It does not take still photos of people or things. "..erroneous eyewitness identifications are one of the
leading causes of wrongful convictions. Of the first 250 DNA exonerations in the United States, 190
of them appear to have involved mistaken identifications" (Benforado 113). As humans, our ethics is
to be honest, but sometimes our brain can get confused and we start to mix up what we really saw
and what our brain is just filling in from past experiences to create a full story. "Presented with new
information about an event, we may readily incorporate it into what we remember. We can even
remember things that we never experienced or saw" (Benforado 117).
He also wants to separate the public from being courtroom actors and leave it up to the professionals
and experts. He thinks by removing the jury, you remove the bias and prejudice of selecting a jury in
your favor. "Research suggest that most judges and potential jurors place too much faith in
witnesses' memories. And they are often oblivious to the things that can reduce accuracy and
reliability, which makes them bad at determining how much weight to give to, say, a particular
eyewitness identification" (Benforado 127). Benforado wants to take the public out of the courtroom
because of their lack of knowledge. But not only their lack of knowledge, but both counsel having
peremptory challenges. "N. the right of the plaintiff and the defendant in a jury trial to have a juror
dismissed before trial

The Dual Court System

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Crystal Alvarez

More from Crystal Alvarez (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Dual Court System