All right, you people, now you
are in my area—the judicial
system. And we’re going to
learn about the American
System of Justice
That’s right, Judge Judy.
Judge Wapner here. We’ll
start by talking in general
about American courts.
First off, Judges do more than make
decisions based on laws; they
actually make laws.
When judges announce specific
decisions, they also provide the
legal grounds for those decisions.
Those grounds serve as precedents:
guiding principles for determining
what is legal in future situations
that involve similar issues. Other
judges—and lawyers—use these
precedents in guiding their actions.
so, judges by making precedents,
actually make law, with no checks
or balances.
Article III of the Constitution: “the judicial
power of the United States shall be vested
in one supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may . . . establish.”
This provision gives the federal courts
their jurisdiction—the authority to interpret
and administer the law.
The words of the Constitution are vague.
Chief Justice John Marshall provided details
regarding what the courts may
do with his ruling in the crucial
case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)
John Adams commissioned
William Marbury as DC Justice of
the Peace. Midnight appointment
New Secretary of State Madison
refused to deliver; Marbury sued
Marshall Court held: Madison had broken the
law but that that part of the Judiciary Act of
1789 was unconstitutional because it expanded
the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Marshall’s decision initiated
the Court’s power of Judicial
Review—interpreting what the
law is
Not used again until the
decision in Dred Scott vs.
Sanford in 1857 and only about
150 times since.
Even though the Marshall Court’s decision in
Marbury vs. Madison (1803) declared part of
the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional,
the structure of today’s federal court system
was established by another part of that law.
Lower federal courts have original jurisdiction:
the authority to hear a case’s initial trial. But
the limits on federal courts are that they may
only hear cases arising under the Constitution
and other federal laws, and other related
factors—governments, foreign diplomats, etc.
Lower courts are divided into district courts
and courts of appeals
District courts: trial courts in the federal
court system
They are assigned to specific geographic areas
District courts make decisions in
disputes based on the law and
facts presented in the case
Cases are tried before a
district court judge and jury.
Both sides present evidence,
some of which is supplied by
witnesses. Prosecutors
represent the people; defense
council represent defendants
Courts of appeals hear
appeals of cases that
have been adjudicated
by district courts
There are 11 U. S. courts of appeals, each of
which covers a jurisdiction called a circuit.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals covers the
Western region: AK, HI, WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ,
ID, and MT
Each circuit court of appeals has 6-28 judges
No juries; usually only 3 judges hear a case;
however, at times the entire circuit court may
hear a case—the Ninth Circuit and the Pledge
of Allegiance “Under God” lawsuit
Judges base their decisions on two inputs:
written legal briefs submitted by the attorneys
from both sides and from the written
record from the actual trial
Often, attorneys from both sides may also
orally argue the case before a 3-judge panel
The judges can reverse the lower court’s
decision; affirm (or uphold) the lower court’s
decision; or send the case back to the lower
court for retrial. Usually, a reversal will come
if the appeals court finds that the lower court
did not properly apply a law.
Students, also understand that
federal judges serve “for life.”
My fellow Founders
and I wanted a
system where
judges could
remain
independent of
political pressure.
Federal judges are appointed by the President,
and approved by the Senate. Through
Senatorial Courtesy, presidents will give
senators from their party who live in the
region where the judge will serve the courtesy
of reviewing and approving nominations.
The United States Supreme Court
Now, it’s our
turn.
Clarence Thomas (1991); Ruth Bader
Ginsburg (1993); Stephen Breyer (1994);
Samuel Alito (2006)
Chief Justice: John Roberts (2005); John Paul
Stevens (1975); Antonin Scalia (1986);
Anthony Kennedy (1988), David Souter (1990)
No background requirements:
age, profession. But all have had
significant preparation
Constitution does not set size; Congress sets
the size. The current number of 9 set 1869.
Hello, again, students. Chief
Justice John Marshall here.
How long can a Supreme
Court Justice serve, per the
Constitution?
“During good behavior” (or for life)
Appointed by the President; approved by the
U. S. Senate
The Supreme Court is
mostly an appeals court,
reviewing cases from lower
federal courts. About 12% of
the cases we review come
from state courts.
Each year, the Supreme Court receives
hundreds of cases. It sets its own agenda by
choosing to hear cases on public policy issues
that it considers the most pressing. Those
cases are placed on the court’s docket (or
schedule)
Most people who petition
the Supreme Court request
a writ of certiorari. If the
Court agrees to hear the
case, it grants a cert under
the Rule of Four—if 4
justices vote to hear the
case.
Lawyers who may argue before the Supreme
Court must be members of the Supreme
Court bar—having been a member of a state
bar for at least 3 years and known to be of
Good moral and professional character.
For cases we choose to hear (about
140 out of the nearly 8,000 cases
filed each year), lawyers for each
side file written briefs—summaries
of their arguments based on law,
the Constitution, and evidence.
If one of the sides in a case is the United States
Government, the Solicitor General of the
United States, an official of the Department of
Justice, files the brief.
Groups who are not the main parties but who
have great interest in a case may file amicus
curiae (friend of the court) briefs as well
After the Court has read the written
briefs, lawyers for both sides
present oral arguments before the
Court. Generally, each side has
30-minutes to present its case;
however, usually my colleagues
and I use most of that time by
asking them to respond to our (the
justices’) questions.
After hearing arguments on cases for about
three weeks, the members of the Court go into
consideration sessions—they discuss the cases,
in order of seniority, starting with the Chief
Justice, and decide how they will rule.
If we are not unanimous, the
senior person on each side of an
issue assigns opinion-writing
responsibilities.
The majority opinion—the views of the majority
of the court in both the outcome of the case
and on the Court’s grounds for deciding it.
Concurring opinions—a justice writes one of
these if he/she agrees with the majority outcome, but disagrees with all or part of the
grounds stated in the majority opinion.
A justice might write a dissenting
opinion if he or she disagrees with
the decision reached by the
majority. In this document, the
justice notes the grounds for his
or her dissent.
The Supreme Court rarely reverses the
decision of an earlier court, placing great
weight on stare decisis—or upholding
precedents set by earlier courts.
There are major differences in
civil and criminal cases. In a
criminal law case, the people,
or the prosecutor, must prove
guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, for example. But in a
civil suit the plaintiff does not
have to prove wrongdoing by
the defendant beyond a
reasonable doubt.
That’s why I walked away acquitted
of murder in 1996, but in the civil
suit brought by Fred Goldman and
others I lost almost everything.
Since the decision of the
Marshall Court in
Marbury v. Madison
(1803) Supreme Courts
have made thousands
of decisions. Some of
them, however, have
been so important, that
they are considered
landmark—or very
important--decisions. In
this short class we shall
discuss some of those
landmark decisions.
Good evening
Columbians. I was
Chief Justice Earl
Warren. Our first case
was a multi-amendment
case (with emphasis on
the First Amendment)
that my court, the
Warren Court, decided:
Griswold v. Connecticut
(1965).
A Connecticut law criminalized counseling
married couples about or giving married
couples medical treatment for the purposes
of preventing conception of a child.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Issue: Does the Constitution protect the
right of marital privacy against state
restrictions on a couple’s ability to be
counseled in the use of contraceptives?
The Court held: together the First, Third,
Fourth and Ninth Amendments create the
right to privacy among married people.
The Connecticut law was therefore
unconstitutional and rendered null and
void.
Yet another case that the Warren
Court, decided, similar in many
respects to Griswold v.
Connecticut (1965) was Loving v.
Virginia (1967.)
In 1958 a Virginia law was in
effect that banned interracial
marriages. Two residents of
Virginia, Mildred Jeter, an
African-American woman and
Richard Loving, a white male,
were married in Washington, D. C., and
shortly after returned to Virginia. They were
charged with violating the Virginia law, found
guilty and sentenced each to a year in jail.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Issue: Did Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law
violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment?
In a unanimous decision, the Court held: that
distinctions drawn according to race were
generally “odious to a free people” and were
subject to “the most rigid scrutiny” under the
Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law had
no legitimate purpose “independent of
invidious racial discrimination.” The Court
further rejected Virginia’s argument that the
statute was legitimate because it applied
equally to blacks and whites.
Columbians, I was Chief
Justice Warren Burger. We
will now discuss one of my
Court’s landmark decisions
in a case regarding the
Fourteenth Amendment:
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Norma McCorvey (Roe), a Texas resident,
sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion,
because the pregnancy was the result of rape.
Texas law prohibited abortions except to save a
pregnant woman’s life. Roe sued claiming
that the Texas law violated the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Issue: Does the Constitution embrace a
woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy
by abortion?
The Burger Court held: a woman’s right
to an abortion fell within the right to
privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut--1965)
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The decision gave a woman total
autonomy over her pregnancy during the
first trimester.
Now we are going to
discuss 4 cases that
primarily pertain to the
rights of the accused in
criminal cases. The first
case is Mapp v. Ohio
(1961)
While searching her home for a fugitive,
Ohio police discovered obscene materials
in Dolree Mapp’s possession. The police
admitted that the search of the home for
the fugitive violated the Fourth
Amendment. Still, Mapp was convicted of
possessing obscene materials.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Issues:
1) Were the confiscated materials
protected by the First Amendment?
2) May evidence obtained in a search
that violated the Fourth Amendment
be used in a state court?
The Court held: all evidence obtained through
illegal searches and seizures is inadmissible in
state court. This decision created the
exclusionary rule, placing on all levels of
government the requirement of excluding
illegally obtained evidence from all criminal
court proceedings.
Our next case concerns
the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments; specifically
the right to counsel:
Gideon v.
Wainwright (1963)
Gideon was arrested in Florida and charged
with felony breaking and entering. He lacked
funds to hire a lawyer and requested a courtappointed lawyer. The judge refused; Gideon
defended himself, was convicted, and
sentenced to 5 years in state prison.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Issue: Do the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments guarantee a right to legal
counsel in all cases?
The court held: Gideon had a right to
be represented by a court-appointed
attorney. Overruled Betts v. Brady (1942).
Justice Black: “an obvious truth” that a
fair trial for a poor defendant requires a
competent legal
counsel. “Lawyers
are a necessity, not
a luxury.”
Another landmark decision
dealing with the right of an
accused person to an
attorney was the 1964
decision, Escobedo v.
Illinois.
Escobedo was arrested in connection with
a murder and, during interrogation at a
local police station, the police denied him
access to his attorney. Without his lawyer
present, he confessed to firing the shot
that killed the victim and, based on that
confession, was convicted.
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Issue: Is an accused person entitled to
have an attorney present during
questioning.?
The Warren Court held: based on the
“exclusionary rule” from Mapp v. Ohio (1961),
the police obtained Escobedo’s confession in
an illegal manner. His conviction was
overturned. The Court also created the
Escobedo Rule: based on the Sixth
Amendment, police must warn an accused of
the rights to remain silent and to have an
attorney present during questioning.
Columbians, Elle here. Our
next case is one of the most
famous in American history.
It involves the Fifth
Amendment: Miranda v.
Arizona (1966)
Miranda was arrested in Arizona and
the police questioned him without
advising him of his constitutional rights
under the Fifth Amendment (selfincrimination.) He confessed to part of
the crime. His confession was used in
court and he was convicted, based, in
part, on his confession.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Issue: Did the police practice of
interrogating individuals without
advising them of their right to counsel
and protection against self-incrimination
violate the Fifth Amendment?
The Court held: Prosecutors could not use
statements in court that had been made by
defendants unless police had advised them
of their privilege against self-incrimination.
The Court also specifically outlined what
police warnings to suspects must include
(right to remain silent, right to counsel
present during questioning, etc.)
In 1896 the
Court ruled, in
I was Justice Thurgood
Marshall. When I was an
attorney, I argued, and
won, the single most
important Supreme Court
case regarding civil
rights: Brown v. Board of
Plessy v. Ferguson, Education of Topeka, KS
that Blacks could be
(1954).
placed in separate
facilities if they were
“equal” to those used
by whites. School
districts therefore
created separate “but equal” schools
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
An African-American girl named Linda
Brown lived near an all-white school in
Topeka, KS. To get to her all-black school,
she had to cross several dangerous roads
and railroads. Her father, Oliver Brown,
filed suit to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson to
enable Linda Brown to attend the all-white
school near her home.
Issue: Did the
“separate but equal”
provision of Plessy v.
Ferguson violate the equal protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment?
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
The Warren Court held: Plessy
v. Ferguson’s “separate but
equal rule” was a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Racial
segregation in public education
“has a detrimental effect on
minority children because it is
interpreted as a sign of inferiority.”
Result: beginning of the end of all forms
of state-maintained racial segregation.