4 State Courts

Introduction There are 50 separate state court systems plus one for the District of Columbia. State organization does not always parallel the relatively simple organizational structure of the federal judiciary

History of State Courts Early State Courts After the American Revolution state legislatures kept a close eye on the courts Could remove judges from their posts Abolished certain courts that issued unpopular decisions Tensions between legislatures and courts grew County courts were plagued with corruption Judge selection was controversial as states had different methods

History of State Courts Following the Civil War, America entered into a period of rapid industrialization and growth Led to increases in population and, in turn, a surge of caseloads Rapid changes in state judiciaries led to various successes and failures Jurisdictional boundaries were unclear

History of State Courts Contemporary State Courts From the Mid-1900s onward, state courts continued to grow in numbers and specializations Some were developed to meet the demands of increasing caseloads Some were created to cover specific geographic areas Some were developed to target specific problems

History of State Courts There was considerable confusion when jurisdictional boundaries overlapped Many called for the consolidation of state courts However, there was criticism of unification Some judges and other courtroom personnel were resistant

History of State Courts Toward Unification Court unification is concerned with simplifying state court structures and centralizing control Five principal elements of court unification

History of State Courts State court structures look coherent and bureaucratic Supporters also believe it will improve cost effectiveness Critics argue that more time should be spent on caseflow versus reshaping judiciaries into a hierarchal model California as an example of a unified court system Indiana as an example of a fragmented judiciary

History of State Courts Counting Courts Almost impossible to get an accurate count Definitions include 16 different types of courts Lack of uniformity in names States have differing definitions, e.g. judgeships

State Court Structure Limited Jurisdiction Courts Roughly constitute 90% of all courts “Subject matter” consists of minor offenses Sanctions are usually very minor Try civil cases for very small amounts of money

State Court Structure Records of court proceedings are not kept Makes it difficult to appeal the court’s decision If appealed, go before the general jurisdiction courts as a new trial, a trial de novo

State Court Structure Judges sometimes have no formal legal training Frequently plagued by resource shortages Often disposed of in large numbers Full-blown trials are very rare Some hold preliminary hearings in felony cases

State Court Structure Justice of the Peace Courts Found in five states (AZ, DE, LA, MT, TX) Texas Justice of Peace (JOP) Courts have original jurisdiction over “Class C misdemeanors” Justices of the peace sometimes issue search and arrest warrants, perform wedding ceremonies, and can serve as coroners in less populous counties

State Court Structure Magistrate Courts Similar to JOP Courts; no jury trials Chief magistrate assigns cases & sets court dates Municipal/City/County/Metropolitan Courts

State Court Structure New Jersey has municipal courts Usually only has jurisdiction in its own municipality Texas has county courts Has concurrent jurisdiction with JOP courts

State Court Structure Other Specialized Limited Jurisdiction Courts Some are truly limited to just a handful of cases, e.g. dedicated probate courts or “family courts” Justices in Lower Courts Feely felt the process was the punishment

State Court Structure General Jurisdiction Courts Often serve as the major trial courts Some specialize in certain types of cases Typically organized along political boundaries Criminal Cases Best known for conducting high profile felony cases before full juries Civil Cases Usually involve dollar amounts over a specified threshold

State Court Structure Intermediate Appellate Courts Primary function is to review the judgments of trial courts and decisions of administrative agencies Numbers vary by state in terms of how many judges participate in deciding whether to grant review and how many are needed to grant review

State Court Structure State Supreme Courts Have the last word over matters arising from the lower courts Often petitioned with more cases than the can review during a term

State Court Structure Each state has its own rules for selecting cases Some states will have additional courts of “last resort” (e.g. Texas and Oklahoma) Some types of cases go directly to state supreme courts (e.g. death penalty cases)

State Court Structure State Supreme Court Policymaking Have strong policymaking authority 50 state supreme courts versus one U.S. Supreme Court There is simply not enough time and resources for the federal courts to decide all federal matters, so these cases are adjudicated at the state level (Example of judicial federalism) Gregg v. Georgia

State Court Workloads Insert Figure 4-4: Incoming Criminal Caseloads, 1997–2006 Insert Figure 4-3: Incoming Civil Caseloads, 1997–2006

State Court Workloads Lower Courts Appellate Courts Total incoming trial caseloads exceed 100,000,000 in any given year Appellate Courts Man considerations when considering caseloads Have appellate and original jurisdiction Vary in mandatory and discretionary caseloads The “Blakely bounce”

State Court Administration Administrative Office of the Courts Several functions including budget preparation, data collection, research, etc. Some states also run juvenile and adult probation services through the administrative offices of the courts California’s Office of the Courts One of the larger agencies with a wide range of functions

State Court Workloads Managing the Workload Caseflow management is court supervision of all cases filed in the court An administrative process A court knows it has a caseflow management problem when: More cases are coming in versus being resolved The “age” of the pending caseload exceeds ideal standards

State Court Workloads An adjournment is a continuance of a scheduled event Too many leads to the scheduling of more cases; it is critical to control adjournments 1987 the Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards was created Released measures and standards in 1990 Five areas performance

Recent Developments State courts are in a difficult spot today Funding has been cut, staffing levels reduced, and there can be strain with other branches of government However, courts are reinventing themselves and innovating at unprecedented rates

Recent Developments Time Constraints and Safety Concerns Judges are Stretched Thin Recent advances in the realm of problem-solving courts have required more time Affected by “truth in sentencing” laws Violence and Threats Chicago Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow Atlanta rape trial defendant Terri Schiavo judge

Recent Developments Public Support and Political Problems Public Opinion Courts are increasingly being forced to respond to public pressures for efficiency, accountability and fairness People are not necessarily supportive of the courts

Recent Developments Politicizing State Judiciaries The relationships between state judiciaries and legislatures have become contentious Palm Sunday Compromise