Chapter 3 The U.S. Legal System Chapter 3: The U.S. Legal System Copyright © 2017 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Overview LO3-1: What are the different types of jurisdiction a court must have before it can render a binding decision in a case? LO3-2: What is venue? LO3-3: How is our dual court system structured? LO3-4: What are the threshold requirements that must be met before a court will hear a case? LO3-5: What are the steps in civil litigation?

Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 1 Sara Burns cares deeply for her best friend Allison Lefevers, even though she does not care for her timidity. Last month, Lefevers's co-worker, Thomas Benfield, informed their supervisor that Lefevers had wrongfully taken hundreds of dollars from the company's operational account for her own personal use. After an extensive investigation, the company concluded that Benfield's allegations were baseless, originating from ill will between the two co-workers. The company allowed Lefevers to keep her job, and terminated Benfield for his wrongful conduct. Burns has encouraged Lefevers to pursue a civil action against Benfield for defamation (even though he lost his job, Burns has determined that he is far from "judgment-proof"), but Lefevers has politely declined, saying that she does not want to "fight the fight." Frustrated with her friend's lack of fortitude, Burns plans to file a civil action on behalf of Lefevers, listing her friend as the plaintiff, and Thomas Benfield as the defendant. Should she recover a judgment in favor of her friend, and should execution on the judgment be successful, Burns will turn any proceeds over to Lefevers. Can Sara Burns proceed in a civil action against Thomas Benfield on behalf of her friend Allison Lefevers? Why or why not? Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 1: Sara Burns cares deeply for her best friend Allison Lefevers, even though she does not care for her timidity. Last month, Lefevers's co-worker, Thomas Benfield, informed their supervisor that Lefevers had wrongfully taken hundreds of dollars from the company's operational account for her own personal use. After an extensive investigation, the company concluded that Benfield's allegations were baseless, originating from ill will between the two co-workers. The company allowed Lefevers to keep her job, and terminated Benfield for his wrongful conduct. Burns has encouraged Lefevers to pursue a civil action against Benfield for defamation (even though he lost his job, Burns has determined that he is far from "judgment-proof"), but Lefevers has politely declined, saying that she does not want to "fight the fight." Frustrated with her friend's lack of fortitude, Burns plans to file a civil action on behalf of Lefevers, listing her friend as the plaintiff, and Thomas Benfield as the defendant. Should she recover a judgment in favor of her friend, and should execution on the judgment be successful, Burns will turn any proceeds over to Lefevers. Can Sara Burns proceed in a civil action against Thomas Benfield on behalf of her friend Allison Lefevers? Why or why not? [Instructor: See Threshold Requirements in Chapter 3]

Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 2 Officer Brian Perkins was having a difficult Monday morning. For the past three hours, he was responsible for serving process in three civil cases (As Chapter 3 indicates, service of process is the procedure by which courts present litigation documents to defendants. Those documents typically consist of a complaint, which specifies the factual and legal basis for the lawsuit and the relief the plaintiff seeks, and a summons, a court order that notifies the defendant of the lawsuit and explains how and when to respond to the complaint.) For the first civil case, Merriwether v. Alstott, Officer Perkins attempted to serve the defendant Harry Alstott at his home, but no one appeared to be there. For the second civil case, Setliff v. Sanders, the person answering the door claimed the defendant, Marshall Sanders, did not live there, and that he did not even know who Marshall Sanders was. Leaving the premises, Officer Perkins surmised that the residential address indicated on the summons was incorrect. Either that, or the person who answered the door was lying. For his third attempt at service of process that morning, in a lawsuit captioned Jackson v. Graves, Officer Perkins drove to the home of Laticia M. Graves at 721 Magnolia Street. Officer Perkins knocked on the door of the dilapidated house, and although no one answered the door, a second-story window opened almost immediately. A female in the house looked down from her second story vantage point and pointedly asked Officer Perkins, "What do you want?" Officer Perkins responded with a question, "Are you Laticia Graves?," to which the woman responded, "Yeah. What's it to you?" Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 2: Officer Brian Perkins was having a difficult Monday morning. For the past three hours, he was responsible for serving process in three civil cases (As Chapter 3 indicates, service of process is the procedure by which courts present litigation documents to defendants. Those documents typically consist of a complaint, which specifies the factual and legal basis for the lawsuit and the relief the plaintiff seeks, and a summons, a court order that notifies the defendant of the lawsuit and explains how and when to respond to the complaint). For the first civil case, Merriwether v. Alstott, Officer Perkins attempted to serve the defendant Harry Alstott at his home, but no one appeared to be there. For the second civil case, Setliff v. Sanders, the person answering the door claimed the defendant, Marshall Sanders, did not live there, and that he did not even know who Marshall Sanders was. Leaving the premises, Officer Perkins surmised that the residential address indicated on the summons was incorrect. Either that, or the person who answered the door was lying. For his third attempt at service of process that morning, in a lawsuit captioned Jackson v. Graves, Officer Perkins drove to the home of Laticia M. Graves at 721 Magnolia Street. Officer Perkins knocked on the door of the dilapidated house, and although no one answered the door, a second-story window opened almost immediately. A female in the house looked down from her second story vantage point and pointedly asked Officer Perkins, "What do you want?" Officer Perkins responded with a question, "Are you Laticia Graves?," to which the woman responded, "Yeah. What's it to you?"

Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 2 (cont'd) Officer Perkins asked the not-so-polite occupant to open the door, to which she responded, "I ain't comin' down there, and if you ain't got a warrant, you ain't comin' in." Frustrated, Officer Perkins replied, "Well, I have civil papers to serve you, ma'am, and if you won't come down to get them, I'm going to put them in your mailbox." The response was, "I ain't comin' to the door." Officer Perkins immediately proceeded to the mailbox, and put the complaint and summons in the matter of Jackson v. Graves in the box. The address on the mailbox indicated 721 Magnolia Street. In his notes, Officer Graves wrote that the defendant, Laticia Graves, had been served with process on Monday, September 13, 2015 at 11:47 a.m. As he entered his patrol car, Officer Perkins looked backed at the second-story window from which he had received his impolite greeting. The woman had since closed the window, and was watching his every move. Did Officer Perkins effectively serve process on the defendant, Laticia Graves? Why or why not? Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 2 (cont'd): Officer Perkins asked the occupant to open the door, to which she responded, "I ain't comin' down there, and if you ain't got a warrant, you ain't comin' in." Frustrated, Officer Perkins replied, "Well, I have civil papers to serve you, ma'am, and if you won't come down to get them, I'm going to put them in your mailbox." The response was, "I ain't comin' to the door." Officer Perkins immediately proceeded to the mailbox, and put the complaint and summons in the matter of Jackson v. Graves in the box. The address on the mailbox indicated 721 Magnolia Street. In his notes, Officer Graves wrote that the defendant, Laticia Graves, had been served with process on Monday, September 13, 2015 at 11:47 a.m. As he entered his patrol car, Officer Perkins looked backed at the second-story window from which he had received his impolite greeting. The woman had since closed the window, and was watching his every move. Did Officer Perkins effectively serve process on the defendant, Laticia Graves? Why or why not? [Instructor: See Jurisdiction in Chapter 3]

Types of Jurisdiction Original jurisdiction: The power to hear and decide cases when they first enter the legal system Appellate jurisdiction: The power to review previous judicial decisions to determine whether trial courts erred in their decisions Jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear a particular case. Types of jurisdiction include original jurisdiction, which refers to the power to hear and decide a case when it first enters the legal system, and appellate jurisdiction, which refers to the power to review a lower court decision to determine whether the lower court erred in rendering its verdict.

Types of Jurisdiction In personam jurisdiction: The power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court Subject-matter jurisdiction: The power to hear certain kinds of cases Other types of jurisdiction include in personam jurisdiction, which refers to the power to render a decision affecting the rights of specific persons before the court, and subject-matter jurisdiction, which refers to the power to hear certain kinds of cases.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Admiralty cases Bankruptcy cases Federal criminal prosecutions Cases in which one state sues another state Claims against the United States Federal patent, trademark, and copyright claims Other claims involving federal statutes that specify exclusive federal jurisdiction Federal courts have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over the following types of litigation: admiralty cases; bankruptcy cases; federal criminal prosecutions; cases in which one state sues another state; claims against the United States; federal patent, trademark, and copyright claims; and other claims involving federal statutes that specify exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: State Jurisdiction All cases not falling under exclusive federal jurisdiction State courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over all cases not falling under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Concurrent Federal Jurisdiction Federal-question cases Diversity-of-citizenship cases Federal and state courts have concurrent, or shared, subject-matter jurisdiction over federal-question and diversity-of-citizenship cases.

What Is Venue? Venue: The court's geographic location, determined by each state's statutes Change of venue When the court location where plaintiff files case is inconvenient to defendant If defendant believes it will be difficult to select an unbiased jury in present court location Once a case is in the proper court system, venue determines which trial court in the system will hear the case. Venue is a matter of geographic location determined by each state's statutes. If the location of the court where the plaintiff filed the case is an inconvenience to the defendant or if the defendant believes it will be difficult to select an unbiased jury in that venue, the defendant may request that the judge move the case by filing a motion for a change of venue. The judge has the discretion to grant or deny the motion.

The U.S. Dual Court System Dual, parallel court structure Federal State The U.S. legal system has two parallel court structures: a federal system and a state system. Once a plaintiff files a case in one of the systems, the case remains in that system throughout the appeals process. The only exception to this rule occurs when a party to a lawsuit appeals the decision of a state supreme court to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Federal Court System Federal trial courts (U.S. district courts) Intermediate courts of appeal United States Supreme Court The federal court system derives its power from Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution and consists of three main levels: trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and the court of last resort. The U.S. district courts are the federal trial courts, the intermediate courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction over all federal trial courts, and the United States Supreme Court has ultimate appellate jurisdiction, with the power to review all lower court decisions.

State Court Systems State trial courts Intermediate courts of appeal Courts of last resort The state trial courts have original jurisdiction over all state-related cases, the intermediate courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction over all state trial courts, and the courts of last resort have the power to review all lower court decisions.

Threshold Requirements for Litigation Standing (to sue) Case or controversy (justiciable controversy) Ripeness Before a case makes it to court, it must meet three threshold requirements. These requirements ensure that courts hear only cases that genuinely require adjudication. The three requirements are standing, case or controversy, and ripeness. In order to initiate litigation, the plaintiff must have standing to sue, there must be a justiciable controversy, and the case must be ripe for trial.

Steps in Civil Litigation: The Pretrial Stage Informal negotiations Pleadings Service of process Defendant's response Pretrial motions Discovery Pretrial conference The pretrial steps in civil litigation include informal negotiations, pleadings, service of process, the defendant's response, pretrial motions, discovery, and the pretrial conference.

Steps in Civil Litigation: The Trial Jury selection Opening statements Examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence Closing arguments Jury instructions The stages of a trial include jury selection, opening statements, the examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and jury instructions.

Steps in Civil Litigation: Posttrial Motions Motion for a judgment in accordance with verdict Motion for a judgment notwithstanding verdict Motion for a new trial Posttrial motions include a motion for a judgment in accordance with the verdict, a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a motion for a new trial.

Steps in Civil Litigation: Appellate Procedure Either party or both parties may appeal a judge's decision Requires a prejudicial error of law Must file notice of appeal Appellant must file a brief Oral arguments Decision Either party may appeal a judge's decision on posttrial motions or on her or his final judgment. Sometimes, both parties appeal the same decision. For example, if a jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in damages, the plaintiff and the defendant may both appeal the amount of the judgment. Appellate courts, however, reverse only about one out of every ten trial court decisions on appeal. To be eligible for appeal, the losing party must argue that a prejudicial error of law occurred during the trial. A prejudicial error of law is a mistake so significant that it likely affected the outcome of the case. To appeal a case, the attorney for the appealing party (the appellant) files a notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court within a prescribed time. The appellant then files a brief, or written argument, with the court. The appeals court then usually allows the attorneys to present oral arguments before the court. The court considers these arguments, reviews the record of the case, and renders a decision.

Appellate Court Decision-Making Powers Affirmation Modification Reversal Remand Upon review of a lower court decision, the appellate court has the right to affirm the decision, modify it, reverse it, or remand the case to the trial court for a new trial.

Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 3 The mayor of Forbes, Mississippi was given video evidence that Brenda Hollingsworth, the town's fire chief, was taking bribes from a company that boards up fire-damaged buildings in return for letting them know first when a fire occurs. The mayor demanded her resignation, telling her she would be fired if she did not resign, and drew up an agreement that served as her resignation and also granted her a $4,000 severance package. Hollingsworth signed the agreement and accepted the severance package, but then immediately filed a lawsuit in the state court system on the grounds of wrongful discharge and defamation, as the mayor told other members of the town government why Hollingsworth resigned. The county court reviewed the suit and dismissed it. Hollingsworth appeals the county court's decision to the state appeals court. The appeals court reviews the information in the case. Do you believe that Hollingsworth's appeal is groundless? Or will the appeals court hear the case? What is the significance of the facts that she signed the agreement and accepted the severance package, and that the mayor told others about Hollingsworth's transgressions? Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 3: The mayor of Forbes, Mississippi was given video evidence that Brenda Hollingsworth, the town's fire chief, was taking bribes from a company that boards up fire-damaged buildings in return for letting them know first when a fire occurs. The mayor demanded her resignation, telling her she would be fired if she did not resign, and drew up an agreement that served as her resignation and also granted her a $4,000 severance package. Hollingsworth signed the agreement and accepted the severance package, but then immediately filed a lawsuit in the state court system on the grounds of wrongful discharge and defamation, as the mayor told other members of the town government why Hollingsworth resigned. The county court reviewed the suit and dismissed it. Hollingsworth appeals the county court's decision to the state appeals court. The appeals court reviews the information in the case. Do you believe that Hollingsworth's appeal is groundless? Or will the appeals court hear the case? What is the significance of the facts that she signed the agreement and accepted the severance package, and that the mayor told others about Hollingsworth's transgressions? [Instructor: See Steps in Civil Litigation in Chapter 3]

Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 4 Defendant John Woodson is an African-American male accused of murdering a white female in an apartment burglary. During the jury selection process, Prosecutor Wallace Forbes exercises only two peremptory challenges, excusing from service the only two African Americans in the jury. An all-white jury is eventually empanelled, and Defendant Woodson is convicted of first-degree murder, with life imprisonment imposed as punishment. After the jury verdict is announced, Prosecutor Forbes is questioned by the local media concerning his exercise of the peremptory challenges. Prosecutor Forbes explains that race was not a factor in his decision, but that the two potential jurors were excused "because they have facial hair, and as a matter of practice, I do not want individuals with facial hair serving on my jury." Further, Prosecutor Forbes states, "I categorically deny that race played any factor whatsoever in the jury selection process." On appeal, should the appellate court: 1) deem Prosecutor Forbes's actions reversible error, and remand the case to the trial court level to be retried; 2) vacate (nullify) the jury verdict, and dismiss the charges against Defendant Woodson; or 3) allow the conviction to stand? Should prosecutors be allowed to consider race, gender, and age as factors in the jury selection process? Chapter 3 Hypothetical Case 4: Defendant John Woodson is an African-American male accused of murdering a white female in an apartment burglary. During the jury selection process, Prosecutor Wallace Forbes exercises only two peremptory challenges, excusing from service the only two African Americans in the jury. An all-white jury is eventually empanelled, and Defendant Woodson is convicted of first-degree murder, with life imprisonment imposed as punishment. After the jury verdict is announced, Prosecutor Forbes is questioned by the local media concerning his exercise of the peremptory challenges. Prosecutor Forbes explains that race was not a factor in his decision, but that the two potential jurors were excused "because they have facial hair, and as a matter of practice, I do not want individuals with facial hair serving on my jury." Further, Prosecutor Forbes states, "I categorically deny that race played any factor whatsoever in the jury selection process." On appeal, should the appellate court: 1) deem Prosecutor Forbes's actions reversible error, and remand the case to the trial court level to be retried; 2) nullify the jury verdict, and dismiss the charges against Defendant Woodson; or 3) allow the conviction to stand? Should prosecutors be allowed to consider race, gender, and age as factors in the jury selection process? [Instructor: See Steps in Civil Litigation in Chapter 3]