APS Day 32 Agenda Goal - To understand that the US court system is dual and that the rights of the accused have expanded due to landmark SC decisions. Warm-up : Label paper A – H to review of courts within our adversarial, dual and three tiered system Review Marbury v Madison and how it led to judicial review Review questions from homework # 5-7 Defining additional terms sheet Gideon’s Trumpet – Answer questions as you watch

Type of Judicial System? National Government A - Source of authority? # of __B - _____ Governments Source of authority? C - Court? Jurisdiction? F - Court? Jurisdiction? D - Court? Jurisdiction? G - Court? Jurisdiction? Court? Jurisdiction? E - H - Court? Jurisdiction?

Dual System – Answer to Q #3 US Constitution US Congress – makes US laws US Courts interpret and apply US laws 50 State Constitutions 50 State legislatures– makes 50 state laws 50 State Courts interpret & apply 50 state laws If question of Federal law or Constitution Court of Last Resort 1 US Supreme Court Reviews lower court on both sides opinions are final unless overturned by Constitutional Amendment or another USSC ruling 50 State Courts of Last Resort 50 state Supreme Courts Reviews lower state courts decisions; opinions are final unless overturned by Constitutional Amendment or a USSC ruling If question of Federal law or Constitution If question of State law or Constitution Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction 12 + 1 US Circuit Courts of Appeals Reviews district court actions for: Fair trial procedures Interpretation and application of law Constitutionality of law 50 State Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction 50 state Appeals Court systems like in PA –Commonwealth Court, Superior Court Reviews lower court rulings for fair trial procedures, State Constitutionality If question of State law or Constitution If question of Federal law or Constitution Courts of Original Jurisdiction 94 US District Courts – Trial Courts Also US Claims court, Courts Martial, Tax court, Maritime Court, Int’l Trade and lots of administrative Courts 50 State Courts of Original Jurisdiction 50 state District Court systems – Trial Courts – like in PA – Common Pleas, Commonwealth Court, Orphan’s Court, Small Claims Court, Traffic Court

Marbury v Madison (1803) CR2 Q5 Congress passes the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. Part of the law says: Lawsuits involving a plaintiff requesting a court to issue a writ (a court order) of mandamus (ordering a public official to do something) can be begun (original jurisdiction) in the US Supreme Court In 1801 before leaving office, Pres. Adams appoints William Marbury to a federal district court judgeship. The appointment is approved by the Senate but the commission papers are not delivered before Adams leaves office. The new Pres. Jefferson tells his new Sec of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commission papers. Marbury wants to be the judge he was appointed to be, but he needs the commission papers. He sues Madison.

Marbury v Madison (1803) The lawsuit is filed in the US Supreme Court because Marbury wants the Court to issue a writ (a court order) of mandamus (ordering Madison to deliver the papers) and the FJA of 1789 gives the USSC original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus The USSC was headed at the time by Chief Justice John Marshall Marshall sees that the USSC has three items to consider 1 – was Marbury wronged? 2 – does this wrong allow for a lawsuit? 3 – which court should deal with the lawsuit? Answers: Obviously Marbury was wronged. Yes, Marbury can sue. NO, Marbury cannot sue in the USSC

Marbury v Madison (1803) Here is the logic: A 3; S2; C 2 of US Constitution says that the USSC “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” In 1789 Congress gave USSC another case over which to have original jurisdiction. Here the USSC has a problem, Congress passed a law requiring the USSC to do something. But the Constitution contradicts the law. “In all other cases it shall have appellate jurisdiction” Cases involving writs of mandamus are surely “other cases” What should the court do? Chief Justice Marshall answers: If a court is faced with following a law of Congress or a contradictory part of the Constitution, the Constitution will always trump, be held supreme, over the law of Congress. Therefore, if the law is unconstitutional then the Court has no choice but to strike down the law of Congress. Hence, the doctrine of Judicial Review

Activism v Restraint Judicial Activism – When a court issues a decision that goes far beyond addressing the specific case at hand. The activist decision applies, through the concept of precedent, to all other future cases throughout the country. For all intents and purposes an activist court makes new law. How may judicial activism relate to the concepts of substantive democracy, separation of powers and checks and balances? Examples are: Miranda, Gideon, Brown Judicial Restraint – When a court issues a decision that addresses the specific case at hand, and only that case and its two sides. The restrained decision usually follows one of two concepts. Stare decisis (let the decision stand) This means that the court respects the previous court decisions and won’t wholly overturn them. Or legislative deference (respecting the law-making body and its decisions) refusing to step on the powers of the legislature - the court may strike down a law, but will not rewrite it – sending the decision to the legislature to rewrite the law to conform to the court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Usually, a restrained court does NOT make new law. How may judicial restraint relate to the concepts of substantive democracy, separation of powers and checks and balances? Examples are: Bush v Gore, Hamdi, Padilla, recent abortion cases Bush v Gore – USSC ruled that Florida’s Supreme Court erred on the election recount, but that this ruling only applied to this case and to no other future cases Hamdi overturned president’s labeling of a US citizen as an “enemy combatant” to be detained indefinitely without judicial oversight. But the court did not set new rules and really only applied to Hamdi. Falen Gherebi v. George Walker Bush, Donald Rumsfeld Opinion (PDF) (9th Cir., Dec. 18, 2003) Federal Court has jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay detainee who is a foreign citizen. Executive Branch cannot imprison indefinitely without legal recourse Padilla – the USSC did not answer the merits of the case, merely ruling that the lawyer for Padilla filed the appeal in the wrong court against the wrong person. Recent abortion cases – The USSC has ruled very narrowly and further limiting abortion rights, but not overturning Roe v Wade.

1.      Criminal law – laws prohibiting wrongs committed against society 2.      Civil law – laws regulating actions that result in wrongs committed by one party injuring another (torts) or breach of contract 3.      Plaintiff – complainer about their injury who brings a lawsuit 4.      Defendant – party who defends himself against the accusations 5.      Prosecutor – attorney representing “the people” in a criminal case 6.      Adversarial system – two sides argue, presenting their case, out of this legal combat between two lawyers comes the truth  7.      Original jurisdiction – trial authority – hears evidence, weighs evidence, determines truth, renders verdict, orders party to do something  8.      District court – trial court – court of original jurisdiction 9.      Trial court – court of original jurisdiction

10. Appellate jurisdiction – Legal authority to hear an appeal 10.  Appellate jurisdiction – Legal authority to hear an appeal. Authority to review a lower court’s decision based on court procedures not followed, law incorrectly applied, law incorrectly interpreted, or the law being unconstitutional.  11.  Courts of appeals – Courts that have appellate jurisdiction. 12.  Supreme Court – court of last resort. There is no appeal of a Supreme Court decision  13.  Grand jury – jury of 16-23 people who determine if prosecution has enough evidence to go to trial.  14.  Indictment – formal Grand Jury accusation that defendant probably committed a crime and that the prosecutor has enough evidence to go to trial.  15.  Petit jury – small jury of 6-12 people charged with weighting evidence to determine a verdict.  

16.  Verdict – “to say the truth,” decision of a trial court that orders one party in the case to do something  17.  Evidentiary test – weighing evidence by the jury to determine truth  18.  Preponderance of the evidence – evidentiary test in civil cases meaning more evidence on one side than the other  19.  Beyond a reasonable doubt – criminal evidentiary test meaning have very, very little doubt about guilt  20.  Guilty – responsible for committing a crime  21.  Acquittal – not guilty determined by unanimous decision by criminal petit jury  22.  Liable – legally responsible for harm caused to another  23.  Negligent – legal determination that a person did not take the care a reasonable person would take to prevent harm from occurring to another  

24.  Appeal – request that a higher court review a lower court’s decision based on procedures, application of law, interpretation of law, or law unconstitutional  25.  Dual system – federalism created two different sets of governments – state and federal. Each government creates and enforces its own laws, therefore, each needs a court system to adjudicate these laws. Thus there is a federal court system, and there are 50 state court systems.  26.  Writ of certiorari – court order fro the Supreme Court ordering the lower court to “send up” the case for review. 27.  Clerks – recent law school graduates who aid justices in determining the merits of petitions for writ of cert. The clerks also help do legal research and aid in drafting opinions of the court.  28.  Conference – meeting of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court. The conferences are usually held Wednesdays and Fridays. This is when the Justices discuss which cases to hear, and how they will rule on each of the cases they have already heard. 

29.  Rule of four – method by which petitions for writ of cert are granted. After brief discussion of the merits of the case, a vote is taken in conference. If four justices vote in favor, then the court will hear the case either with or without oral argument. 30.  Opinion of the court – Written decision of the court decided by a majority vote of the Justices sitting to hear the case.  31.  Concurring opinion – Written opinion of some Justices who agree with the majority decision, but for different reasons.  32.  Dissenting opinion– Written opinion of the minority Justices who disagree with the majority opinion.  33.    Majority – number greater than half. Usually 5 Justices.  34.    writ of habeas corpus – court order (writ) ordering the jailor to bring the prisoner to court for a fair judicial proceeding  35.    in forma pauperis petition – request that the court pay court costs because the petitioner is poor.  36. constitutional law - law made by courts through interpretation of the constitution

15a – 6-3 police in states have to follow the 4th Amendment – must have a search warrant or the evidence is excluded from trial 15 b – 5-4 Miranda v Arizona (1966) – police taking a person into custody must make the prisoner aware of his/her rights protecting against self-incrimination and guaranteeing the person’s right to a lawyer.

15 c – 6-3 evidence does not need to be excluded if the police use a warrant “in good faith” even if the warrant itself is technically bad. 15 d – 6-3 Students in school may be searched by school officials without warrants so long as there is a reasonable suspicion that a violation has occurred

16 a - Abington v Schempp (1963) – 8-1 states and public schools may not require a school-wide, school-sponsored prayer because of the separation of church and state implied in the establishment clause of the 1st amendment 16 b – 7-2 school may not punish a student for expressing their views, especially political views, so long as the expression is not disruptive to the regular order of the educational environment

16 c – 6-3 the court ruled that abortion cannot be outlawed in the first trimester, may be regulated in the 2nd and may be even further regulated in the 3rd unless the life or health of the mother is at risk. 16 d- 6-2 flag-burning is constitutionally protected speech

17 a – 9-0 public schools cannot be segregated because “separate educational facilities are are inherently unequal.” 17 b - 5-4 school may not use racial or other quotas but may take minority status into account for admissions

17 c – 6-3 – federal congressional districts must be essentially the same size within a state – one person, one vote 17 d – women cannot be unequally compensated or mistreated in the workplace – women can be placed on mandatory unpaid leave for pregnancy, but may not lose their positions or seniority when returning to work