1. Chapter Four
State Courts

2. 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

3. History of State Courts
State judiciaries reflect their English heritage
The geography of early America had a major role in shaping the state courts
Undeveloped rural areas
Relative difficulty of traveling from one place to the next

4. History of State Courts
The Colonial Period
Most political authority rested with governors who were appointed by the King of England
The governors exercised legislative, executive and judicial power (no need for an elaborate court system)
Appointed justices of peace to handle minor cases
County courts were the main trial tribunals

5. History of State Courts
Public prosecutors came onto the scene during the 17th and 18th centuries
Some counties had district attorneys appointed by the governors
Officials exercised broad discretion in disposing of cases
Defendants enjoyed relatively few rights

6. 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 the courts grew
County courts were plagued with corruption
Judge selection was controversial as states had different methods

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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
National Center for State Courts has estimated approximately 16,000 in the U.S.

12. 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
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

13. 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

14. 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

15. State Court Structure Magistrate Courts
Similar to JOP Courts; no jury trials
Chief magistrate assigns cases & sets court dates
Municipal/City/County/Metropolitan Courts
New Jersey has municipal courts
Usually only has jurisdiction in its own municipality
Texas has county courts
Has concurrent jurisdiction with JOP courts

16. 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
Courts in the News: New York State Courts Examined

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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
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)

20. 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

21. State Court Workloads Caseload Statistics (NCSC)
Figure 4-3: Incoming Civil Caseloads, 1997–2006
Figure 4-4: Incoming Criminal Caseloads, 1997–2006

22. State Court Workloads Lower Courts Appellate Courts
Total incoming trial caseloads exceed 100,000,000 in any given year
Traffic violations (55%), Criminal cases (21%), Civil cases (5.5%)
Appellate Courts
Man considerations when considering caseloads
Have appellate and original jurisdiction
Vary in mandatory and discretionary caseloads
The “Blakely bounce”

23. State Court Workloads Dispositions
Convictions and Sentences Per Arrest
Table 4-3
Most serious offenses have the most convictions per arrest
e.g. 68% of murder and non-negligent manslaughter defendants are convicted
Certain serious offenses where an arrest is highly unlikely to result in a conviction
e.g. Motor vehicle theft
These are serious crimes
The Lasting Impact of Ewing v. California

24. State Court Workloads

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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
Politicizing State Judiciaries
The relationships between state judiciaries and legislatures have become contentious
Palm Sunday Compromise