Skip to content
Quick Guides

Criminal Justice - Criminal Courts

Preview 6 of 19 pages

See the first 6 pages exactly as they appear in the document.

  1. Page 1
    Read page 1 as text

    Study Guide C riminal Jus Ɵ ce – Criminal Courts 1. Federal Courts The federal court system is organized much like state court systems. It follows a pyramid structure, with trial courts at the bottom, appellate courts in the middle, and the U.S. Supreme Court at the top. Each level has a different role in handling cases. 1.1 U.S. District Courts: The Trial Courts At the base of the federal court system are the 94 U.S. district courts . These are the trial courts of the federal system, where cases begin. Every state has at least one federal district court , and larger states have several districts. These courts handle both civil cases (such as lawsuits) and criminal cases (cases involving violations of federal law). In 1997, more than 300,000 cases were filed in federal district courts. About 15 percent of these were criminal cases. Since 1972, the number of criminal cases has gone up, mainly because of an increase in drug - related cases . In fact, drugs, fraud, and immigration cases made up over 60 percent of all criminal defendants in federal district courts in 1997. 1.2 U.S. Courts of Appeals: Reviewing Decisions Above the district courts are the U.S. courts of appeals , also known as circuit courts . These courts have two main jobs: 1. To hear appeals from federal district courts 2. To reduce the workload of the U.S. Supreme Court Unlike district courts, appeals courts do not use just one judge. Instead, cases are usually heard by three - judge panels . In especially important cases, the court may hear the case en banc , which means all the judges in that circuit participate. The main role of the courts of appeals is review , not trial. They focus on: • Interpreting laws

  2. Page 2
    Read page 2 as text

    Study Guide • Correcting legal errors made by lower courts These courts do not choose their cases freely . Their workload depends on how many cases are appealed. Each year, they handle more than 40,000 civil and criminal cases . Criminal appeals have increased sharply in recent years. This rise is linked to federal sentencing guidelines and anticrime laws that require mandatory minimum sentences . Because these laws often result in longer prison terms, defendants have more reason to file appeals. 1.3 The U.S. Supreme Court: The Highest Court At the top of the federal court system is the U.S. Supreme Court . It hears appeals from: • Federal courts of appeals • State courts (when federal or constitutional issues are involved) The Supreme Court has only nine justices , yet it receives thousands of case requests each year. Because of this heavy workload, the justices use certiorari power . This means they decide which cases to hear . The Court usually selects cases that have broad national importance , such as those involving constitutional rights or major legal questions. After reviewing a case, the Court may either: • Affirm the lower court’s decision (agree with it), or • Reverse the decision (overturn it) 1.4 The Policymaking Role of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court plays a major role in criminal justice policymaking , more than any other court. It does this in two main ways. 1.4.1 Judicial Review First, the Court can use its power of judicial review . This power allows the Court to: • Declare acts of Congress unconstitutional • Review laws passed by state legislatures

  3. Page 3
    Read page 3 as text

    Study Guide Judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803) . In that case, the Court struck down a law that conflicted with the Constitution and set an important precedent that still guides the Court today. 1.4.2 Interpreting the Law Second, the Court shapes policy by interpreting the law . A well - known example comes from the Warren Court , led by Chief Justice Earl Warren . During this period, the Court focused heavily on due process and issued rulings that changed how states treat criminal defendants. These decisions: • Guaranteed the right to an attorney in state criminal trials • Limited police search and seizure practices • Required police to inform suspects of their rights These rulings significantly influenced modern criminal justice procedures. 1.5 Judicial Ac Ɵ vism vs. Judicial Restraint There is ongoing debate about how much power courts should have in making public policy. 1.5.1 Judicial Activism Judicial activism occurs when judges move beyond a strict, literal reading of the Constitution to promote what they believe is a just or necessary outcome. Judges who support activism see constitutional rights as flexible and evolving . Chief Justice Earl Warren expressed this idea by stating that the protections in the Bill of Rights must reflect “ evolving standards of decency ” in a changing society. Judicial activism is not tied to one political viewpoint . It can be liberal or conservative , depending on how the Constitution is interpreted. 1.5.2 Judicial Restraint In contrast, judicial restraint encourages judges to limit their role. Supporters believe courts should:

  4. Page 4
    Read page 4 as text

    Study Guide • Avoid making public policy • Leave lawmaking to elected officials • Stick closely to the text of the Constitution The key difference between activism and restraint is whether judges only interpret the law or also help shape it . This balance between interpreting and shaping the law continues to influence how the federal courts operate today. 2 . Heavy Caseloads and Court Delays One of the biggest challenges facing both federal and state courts is the huge number of cases they must handle. From an administrative point of view, heavy caseloads are the courts’ most serious problem. In 1997 , more than 300,000 civil and criminal cases were filed in federal district courts. Criminal filings reached their highest level since 1933 , the year prohibition ended with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment . State courts face an even larger workload. In 1995 , state courts handled about 86 million new cases , including: • 51 million traffic and ordinance violations • 20 million civil cases • 13 million criminal cases • 2 million juvenile cases Much of this growth is linked to tougher drug laws , which have steadily increased the number of cases entering the court system. Today, nearly two - thirds of state courts are regularly behind on their schedules. When courts are overloaded, delays are almost unavoidable . These delays become especially dangerous when the push to move cases faster begins to outweigh concern for defendants’ rights . In those situations, justice may not be fully served. As a result, modern judicial administration focuses on two major goals: 1. Reducing caseloads

  5. Page 5
    Read page 5 as text

    Study Guide 2. Speeding up court processing 2 .1 Reducing Caseloads One way to manage court overload is to remove certain types of cases from regular trial courts. When minor cases are handled elsewhere, courts can focus on more serious matters. 2 .1.1 Special Courts and Drug Courts Cases involving public drunkenness, traffic violations, and minor drug possession can be shifted to specialized courts . A well - known example is the drug court . Drug courts began in Florida when a county attorney developed a new approach to handling drug possession cases. This idea was later expanded by Janet Reno , who went on to serve as U.S. Attorney General during the Clinton administration. Her work led many other states to create similar courts. Instead of sending first - time drug offenders to prison or traditional probation, drug courts usually require: • Court - supervised drug treatment • Regular drug testing (urinalysis) The main goals of drug courts are to: • Reduce drug use and repeat offenses (recidivism) • Relieve pressure on non - drug cases in the courts Studies show that combining treatment and monitoring is more effective than probation alone and leads to fewer repeat incarcerations for first - time drug offenders. 2 .1.2 Mediation for Civil Disputes Another way to reduce caseloads is to move private civil disputes out of traditional courtrooms and into mediation programs . Disagreements between spouses, neighbors, friends, landlords, and tenants often overwhelm lower courts. Mediation programs — commonly used in divorce, consumer, and landlord - tenant cases — aim to resolve conflicts more efficiently.

  6. Page 6
    Read page 6 as text

    Study Guide Supporters argue that mediation: • Reduces court congestion • Saves time and money • Provides longer - lasting solutions by addressing the root causes of disputes 2 .2 Speeding Up Court Processing When courts handle too many cases, backlogs and trial delays become common. The severity of these delays varies by court, but the consequences can be serious. 2 .2.1 Why Delays Are a Problem Delays can: • Violate a defendant’s right to a speedy trial • Lead to long pretrial incarceration • Pressure innocent defendants to plead guilty • Weaken public confidence in the justice system The public expects justice to be swift and certain , not slow and drawn out. 2 .2.2 Speedy Trial Laws To protect the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial , Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 . This law sets clear deadlines in federal cases: • 30 days from arrest to indictment • 70 days from indictment to trial All 50 states have their own speedy trial laws as well. These laws are designed to prevent unnecessary delays, especially for defendants who are jailed while waiting for trial.

13 more pages in the full document

Unlock it once and it stays in your library, ready to chat with or turn into flashcards.

Unlock the full document

More Criminal Justice study materials

See all

Study this document with CramX

Once it is in your library, every tool can work from it.