Chapter Topics
The History of State Courts
The Organization of State Courts
Types of State Courts
Court Reorganization and Reform
Drug Courts
Consequences of Court Organization
The History of State Courts
• the organization of American courts
reflects but does not mirror their English
heritage
Colonial Courts
• simple courts that followed the form but
not the substance of English courts
• adjudicated cases and performed
administrative tasks
• created as needed and reflected local
customs
Early American Courts
• after American Revolution power shifted
from the courts to legislatures
• former colonists were skeptical of judicial
power
• critics complained when courts declared
legislative acts unconstitutional (judicial
review)
• over time courts began to emerge as an
independent political institution
Courts in a Modernizing Society
• industrialization increased volume and
types of litigation
• courts still reflected a rural society but had
to change—specialized courts were created
(e.g., small claims, juvenile, family
relations)
• in 1931 Chicago had 556 independent
courts
A Complex Court Structure
• the haphazard expansion created a
confusing array of courts and jurisdiction
A Complex Court Structure
• state and local response was to create
MORE courts
• new-specialized courts: small claims,
juvenile, family
• growth was sporadic and haphazard
• growth created political opportunities for
judges and administrative staff
• resulted in complex and confusing system
of state courts
Trial Courts of Limited Jurisdiction:
Lower Courts
Lower level courts whose jurisdiction is limited to
minor civil and criminal cases.
• also called inferior courts or lower courts
• 85% of all judicial bodies in the U.S., n =
13,544 with nearly 18,038 judicial officers
• decide a restricted range of cases and controlled by
local government (county, city, district, etc.)
• not courts of record—no official verbatim transcript
of the proceedings is kept
• appeals go to courts of general jurisdiction and are
termed trial de novo
Criminal Cases
• process millions of misdemeanor cases
each year involving: disturbing the peace,
shoplifting, public drunkenness, speeding,
etc.
• generally impose a max. fine of $1,000
and no more than one year in jail
• many handle preliminary stages of felony
cases—e.g., arraignments, setting bail,
appointing counsel for indigents, conducting
preliminary examinations
Civil Cases
• usually decide cases under a set amount—
often referred to as small claims
• limits range from $1,500 to $15,000—
the median limit is $3,000
• use streamlined procedures to provide
quick, inexpensive processing
• small claims cases are less formal than
other cases
• small claims are a large portion of civil
filings every year
Trial Courts of General Jurisdiction
Trial courts responsible for major criminal
and civil cases
• also called major trial courts (est. 2,044
with 11,390 staff)
• decide matters not specifically delegated
to lower courts
• considerable variation across states with
jurisdiction geographically defined
• no shortage of business—95 million cases
compared to 2.4 federal cases
Criminal Cases
• decide primarily street crimes (compare to
federal courts)
• hear felony cases (violent and nonviolent,
e.g., murder, rape, robbery, burglary, theft)
• number of cases has been growing
• mostly because of the War on Drugs
• most criminal cases do not go to trial
because defendant pleads guilty
• debate is about what penalty to apply not
guilt or innocence
Civil Cases
• outnumber criminal by two to one
• tort cases (personal injury) do not
dominate filings
• common cases include: domestic relations,
estate, personal injury, contracts
• domestic cases relate to the home
(e.g., divorce, custody, support, etc.)
• estate cases (probate) involve matters
dealing with wills, estates, assets, etc.
most estate cases present the judge with
little controversy
Civil Cases
• tort cases (often personal injury) –
private or civil wrong in which the
defendant’s actions cause the injury to
the plaintiff or to property
• may include physical injury, but also
includes contracts, property rights,
and mortgage foreclosures
• tort cases are 5% of all filings but 66%
of trials
• number of cases being heard is
constant
Intermediate Courts of Appeals
• created to relieve caseload growth (39
states)
• must hear all properly filed appeals, are
the final say in most cases
• structure varies—geographically
(statewide or regional) and types of
cases (some hear only civil or criminal
others both)
• number of judges varies and most
employ three judge panels
• most trial court decisions are affirmed
Courts of Last Resort
• usually referred to as State Supreme
Court – specific names vary by state
• number of judges varies (5-0, avg. = 7)
• all have some original jurisdiction
• mostly discretionary jurisdiction—choose
the cases they will hear
• ultimate review board for state law and
constitution
• similar processes as the U.S. Supreme
Court but with more cases
Research on State Supreme Courts
• a relatively new focus of political
scientists
• are important policy makers
• focuses on why state supreme courts
operate the way they do
• judges have been shown to react to case
facts, electoral conditions, and other
political institutions in the state
Justice of the Peace Courts
• origins in small, isolated English towns
• purpose was to create simple and speedy
justice applied by local community
• most are nonlawyer judges, locally elected
with short terms and low salaries
• critics argues JPs are outdated
• reforms focus on upgrading the personnel
or abolishing the system
Upgrading the Personnel
• job is low status within the legal system
• JPs may not have legal training
• reformer suggestions include:
• training programs
• abolishing justice of the peace courts
Abolishing JP Courts
• major obstacle is influence of powerful
nonlawyer judges who like their jobs
• JPs are accessible justice
• advocates believe common sense justice
practiced in a local community is desirable
• they are “people’s courts”
Municipal Courts
Are the urban counterparts of the rural justice
of the peace courts.
• big city case volume required more courts
• political machines viewed courts as a
source of patronage
• often tainted by corruption or scandals
• progressive era (1920s and 30s) reformers
tried to remove politics from municipal courts
The Assembly Line
• urban court caseloads require quick
dispositions
• the response was to create shortcuts—
create shortcuts to resolve cases quickly
• initial appearances are usually the final one
• e.g., traffic court defendants plead guilty
are sentenced in less than a minute and
the next case is called
• few trials are held, attorneys are rare and
the focus is on sentencing
• uniform penalties are common
Is the Process the Punishment?
• a new look at municipal courts sees the
process as less chaotic than it looks and a
court trying to respond to problems not
crimes
• to others the process is the punishment
• waiting in jail
• paying a bail bondsman
• hiring a private attorney
• lost wages
• punishments may vary across jurisdictions
Juvenile Courts
• unique in that they blend civil and criminal
• product of the Progressive movement
• underlying philosophy is legal doctrine of
parens patriae (state as parent)
• all states have juvenile courts, regular
judges may rotate through this assignment or
there may be specialized judges
• 2.2 juveniles arrested (2003), but from
1994-2003 juvenile arrests for violent crime
are decreasing
Juvenile Courts
• age range less than 16-18, may be tried as
an adult for some crime
• most cases are delinquency, status offenses
and child victim
• delinquency – violation of criminal law
that would be a crime if committed by and
adult (e.g., theft, burglary, drugs)
-penalties include probation or juvenile
institution
- a large portion of juvenile matters
Juvenile Courts
• status offenses involve acts illegal only
for juveniles (e.g., runaway, truancy,
possession of alcohol, curfew)
• sentence may be juvenile detention
•child victim petitions involving neglect
or dependency, in court but not the
fault of the juvenile
• court acts as social services agency
Juvenile Courts
• two standards for deciding appropriate
disposition
• best interest of the child – In re Gault
decision required the application of 14th
amendment to juvenile hearings (due
process)
• best interest of the community – some
believe juvenile courts should be less
adversarial, more treatment oriented—the
trend is to more formal and systematic
procedures
Court Unification
•
reformers believe multiplicity of courts is
inefficient and inequitable
•
they call for a unified court system which
reflects five general principles
1. Simplified court structure – one countylevel court and three tier state system
2. Centralized Administration – state
supreme court provides administrative
leadership, hierarchy of authority
Court Unification
3. Centralized Rule Making – state
supreme court should adopt uniform rules
for all state courts, shifts control from
legislatures to judges and lawyers
4. Centralized Judicial Budgeting – state
judicial administrator prepares single
budget, funds allocated by state rather
than local boards
5. Statewide Financing – courts often get
less money than they need from local
jurisdictions, statewide financing could
alleviate this problem
Politics of Court Reorganization
• most states have unified court system
• but not necessarily all five conditions
• four tier systems (rather than three)
• no statewide financing
• difficulty eliminating unneeded courts
• support comes from legal elites
• opposition comes from local governments
who worry about loss of control
• overall, court reformers have made
considerable success
Court Reform: The Next Steps
• better to organize courts from bottom up,
involving those most affected
• must understand the realities of the
courthouse (law in action)
• avoid elite bias, tendency to try and label
certain types of cases as “garbage”, consider
all parties involved in legal proceedings
• new efforts focus on how to improve the
quality of justice often with alternative types
of courts
Drug Courts
• response to War on Drugs, and efforts to
arrest, prosecute and imprison drug offenders
• result of experimentation by judges,
prosecutors, public defenders, and others
Treatment Approach to Drug
Offenders
• premised on belief that treatment will
reduce the likelihood of rearrest
• sentence tied to drug treatment or
dismissed if treatment is completed
Drug Courts
• Miami reports drug court treatment
programs have lower incarceration rates,
less frequent rearrests, longer time to
rearrest
• 33% reduction in rearrest rates for
graduates of Miami drug court
• other changes include efforts to advance
“therapeutic justice”—focusing on therapy
instead of punishment
• variants on drug court—e.g., focusing
exclusively on drugs and families or
juveniles
Evaluating Drug Courts
• continued growth but also increased costs
• unintended consequences?
• one judge claims drug courts have
increased the number of prisoners in jail on
drug charges
• greater likelihood that drug cases
would be prosecuted and heard resulted
in more arrests, leading to more cases
• how to measure success?
• completion of programs can take a long
time
Decentralized and Choice of Courts
• 50 state court systems with significant
differences but also similarities
• with so many courts lawyers may decide
to shop for the most friendly court
• e.g., for federal civil cases litigants may
choose which circuit to file in—the oil and
gas industry prefers to litigate in the fifth
circuit which is home to much oil and
natural gas industry, will the other party
get a fair hearing?
Local Control and Local Corruption
• courts are still locally based and they
reflect the local communities they serve
• e.g., the application of state law often
has a local flavor, jurors in different areas
may have very different opinions and
values
• local control has advantages—links courts
to the people they serve
• but disadvantages too—greater
opportunity for corruption and graft, more
opportunities for injustice
Conclusion
• state caseload growth has been
tremendous
• response to this growth has not always
been well planned or evaluated
• common elements include basic three tier
system with specialized courts (e.g.,
juvenile)
• are a common target of judicial reformers
• state courts do not exist in isolation and
have proven to be highly adaptable