How did the American court system develop and what are some unique features of American court history?
357955
The American Court System is an offshoot of Englands. However, we made some important changes. For example in England there were two differant sets of rules and law for those who were Aristocrates and those who were not. We saw this as inherently unfair. We changed it to make everybody equal under the law. Well we are trying to do this. \n\nWe also made laws which resulted in the Miranda Rights. To be free of arrest without basis or warrent, to be allowed an attorney, to be allowed to not incriminate ourselves, to be allowed an attorney, to be free from abusive and undully long interogation, etc. We are read these rights when arrested and if they are not read what we say can not be held against us and usually result in cases getting thrown out of court. The police are very carefull to read individuals these rights.\n\nI will not go into how these can be abused as well. Any Justice System will not be perfect. For example: While we are provided an attorney if we can not afford one, that attorney probably does not have the ability to give as good a defense as one we pay for ourselves. This is due to how overworked public defenders are, The fact they are paid from the same source as the prosocution, and have much more limited resources to defend us with.\n\nThere is a much higher rate of the poor going to jail than those who are more financial able to attain the best defense possibe.\n\nDid you know that an innocent person can be bankrupt durring a trail? That if found innocent or not guilty they do not receive a refund of their attorney costs? I find this wrong. I understand it would be difficult to refund every persons attorney fees if not found quilty. But if it was a requirment then less hasty arrests would occurr as police made double sure they had a good case. It would benifit our justice system if this were a requirement as less arrests without real probable cause would occurr and people who were innocent would not unfairly lose all their money just defending against wrongfully brought charges. We would also be much more inclined to get back to the belief of "innocent untill proven guilty" instead of the current trend of "guily untill proven innocent".\n\nWhile in theory we are considered innocent untill proven guilty, those who get arrested are really assummed to be guilty or they would not have been arrested in the first place. While this is simply untrue, basically this is what society and the press believes now.\n\nI kind of got off track here, sorry. I really do belive our justice system is better than most in the world. Like I said earlier, no justice system can be perfect.\n\nWe took much of our justice system from the "common law" of England. From there we "improved" upon it, untill we are where we are today. Hope this helps in some small way.
200211
Depends highly on where you arer in the world! Your answer should follow the lines of the different legal instruments that the law system uses(in Scotland - we use both Legislation and common law) to implemet the idea of Justice i.e. consistancy via cases and intrepretation by the courts in the application of the law. Natural justice is another area. Just get any law book and read the first chapter - usually its all in there or if your really lazy - just ready the summaries the chapters provide! Good luck
5770
A meaning of heterogeneous is: “consisting of elements that are not of the same kind or nature; the population of the United States is vast and heterogeneous" I’m guessing that this is what you have in mind.  \n\nSuch considerations often occur because people aren’t familiar with how the system within the United States actually works.  Specifically what I’m referring to its fundamental nature to evolve.  Most people understand that this system is represented by the Constitution of the United States and that within it formal changing occurs with the Constitutional Amendment process.  However, beyond that is the fact that this system has its roots in Common Law and as such supports evolution.\n\nThis occurs from a number of actions but primarily it is by acts of the people.  For example, the people lobby for statute law changes and over time such can result in Constitutional Amendment changes.  \n\nThen too is such as the people’s negation of the law.  When the people are among the jury of a criminal case, they have the power, to judge not only the facts of the case but the application of the law in that single specific case.  While today the legal system mostly resists this jury power, up until the 1880s juries were instructed by the judge (of a criminal case) to judge not only the facts of the case, but to also judge the application of the law in that case.  If the jury believe the law was wrong they could acquit simply for that reason and can still do so today.  This is a power of the people which resides in Common Law going back into the past prior to Magna Carta.\n\nAs the people make a practice of nullifying a specific law, politicians eventually pick up on this and make statute law changes and these will lead eventually to Constitutional Amendments so that Common Law, Statute Law and Constitutional :aw are moving in the same path.\n\nThere is no need for some new approach because over time the people are doing so on their own.  And this incorporates new societal and cultural concepts, and yet maintains the roots of the system we live within.  That system is a written Constitutional Representative Republic and that is important in that in minimizes the power of the mob majority while protecting the rights of the individual.   \n\nProportional representation is becoming popular in some circles here within the United States.  However, we are nor a parliament for of system.  Such a system rewards those who do not become active enough to win the rewards of the system.  If you want to impact the system as a political force, then get active and convince others of your “rightness.”  \n\nWe should keep in mind that we are not a democracy.  The Founders established a system in which only members of the House of Representatives (the lower house) were elected by the people, and even then only the people of a narrowly defined district.  Senators were originally elected by State legislatures (I wish we could get back to that) representing the State itself.  The judges were appointed by the executive with advice and consent of the Senate and the President was selected by the Electoral College who’s members were originally selected by the State legislatures.  You will notice that the voting of a democracy was really not part of the selection of governmental officials and there is a good reason for that, the Founders feared such a system knowing it would lead to a dictatorship.  \n\nAll we need to make this work better is for the people to be proactive at the local, State, and national level.
1159896
Article 3: establishes the last of the three branches of government, the Judiciary. Section 1 establishes the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States. It also sets the terms of judges, of both the Supreme Court and lower courts: that they serve as long as they are on "good behavior," which usually means for life (no Justice and only a few judges have ever been impeached). It also requires that judges shall be paid.\n\nSection 2 sets the kinds of cases that may be heard by the federal judiciary, which cases the Supreme Court may hear first (called original jurisdiction), and that all other cases heard by the Supreme Court are by appeal. It also guarantees trial by jury in criminal court.\n\nSection 3 defines, without any question, what the crime of treason is.
251861
The Supreme Court acts as the highest level of appelate courts in the United States.  They have the final say in any case that they choose to hear.\n\nAlso, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain types of cases involving certain kinds of Conctitutional issues and disputes between states.\n\nSupreme Court justices are appointed for life.  Senators are elected to 6 year terms.  Senators offices are divided into 3 classes, appropriately named Class I, Class II and Class III.  Every even numbered year, one of the classes is up for re-election.\n\nSo this year (2006 in case you're not paying attention)  one class (I think it's class III) will be elected.  In 2008, the next class is elected, and so on.\n\nThe elections that occur between Presidential elections (2006 for example) are referred to as Mid-Term elections, and usually get less attention, and therefore, more incumbant re-elections.
866610
Judgement and condemnation are the American way.\n\nIf there is anything that is consistent in American history it is hate.
514558
Dear Friend,\n\nI THINK you mean judicial precedents.  Judges apply laws to facts.  Ideally, one set of facts should get you the same result no matter which judge you go before.  Also, ideally, you should be able to tell before you go to court what the outcome should be.  If law is reliable and uniformly applied by different judges, all of us can plan our lives accordingly.\n\nSo, judges basically copy each other.  If one judge said that a certain law dictates a certain result under certain circumstances, the next judge to face the same circumstances will try to do the same.  The decision of the prior judge is cited as "precedent," or authority.\n\nIf a really important court, like the United States Supreme Court, makes a precedent, everyone HAS to follow it.  If a lower court judge makes a precedent, other judges may consider it but don't have to.\n\nHope that helps!\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
467696
What city?  What state?  There are hundres, if not thousand of courts across this country.  You might start by looking and Findlaw.
268607
Most cases that eventually make their way to the Supreme Court start in the fedeal district courts, which is the trial court level for the federal government.\n\nThe Supreme Court can also end up with cases emerging from the state courts' systems, but that is a bit more difficult to accomplish, since the Supreme Court will only consider cases on appeal out of the state courts that contain a disputed issue of federal or constitutional law, generally speaking.
557567
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the judicial branch of the United States federal government.\n\nThe court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Appointed to serve for life, they can be removed only by resignation, or by impeachment and subsequent conviction. The only Justice ever impeached, Samuel Chase, was not removed from office because he was acquitted by the Senate.\n\nThe Supreme Court is the only court established by the United States Constitution (in Article III); all other federal courts are created by Congress.\n\nThe court holds both original and appellate jurisdiction, the former established in the U.S. Constitution ("In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction," in Article III, Section II) and the latter defined by acts of Congress; the latter is used quite a bit more often. Like other appellate courts, the Supreme Court may exercise the power of judicial review, or the power to declare federal or state laws, as well as the actions of federal and state executives, unconstitutional. The decisions of the Supreme Court may not be appealed to any other body; as Justice Robert H. Jackson once famously remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."\n\nThe court's yearly terms start on the first Monday in October and finish sometime in the following June or July. Each term consists of alternating two week intervals. During the first interval, the court is in session ('sitting') and hears cases, and during the second interval, the court is recessed to consider and write opinions on cases they've heard.
843661
In what nation? I do not recall any US jurisdiction terming any of its courts as a "judicial court".
1126414
Well there are certainly questions about the American Judicial system. We have good judges and nut cases. But you are still subject to American law. No offense but, until God grants you a place in his nation, you are on American soil. Under American law.  Good luck and let me know how it goes. (And if you get tossed in the local jail, let me know how bubba feels about your standards! Heeeeee...
1058035
The US Constitution was written in 1776.  There have been alot of modifications (amendments) since that time but are you referring to just amendments during that five year period?  If you could be a little more specific, I could help you a whole lot more.  Oh yeah, and don't forget  about The Bill Of Rights.  Maybe even just as important.  To keep corruption out of the executive branch (you know--the checks & balance system) that's going to hell as we speak?  or rather write........
655640
VII. John Marshall and Judicial Nationalism \n    A. Marshall most important chief justice in U.S. history (1801-1835) \n        1. Significantly strengthened the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and other \n            cases. \n        2. His decisions greatly increased power of the federal government over the states. \n            a. Strengthened the union and helped create a stable, nationally uniform environment for \n                business. \n            b. Checked excesses of the popularly elected state legislatures. \n            c. Ironically, his decisions at times hampered democracy at a time when America was \n                become much more democratic during the Jacksonian era.
892987
Each state court system that uses an online system has its own system - there is no one, central system. \n\nThe federal system is called PACER. http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ \nHowever, each U.S. District Court has its own PACER system... so you have to go to the correct district to obtain information.
608736
It is all due to appeals, which wind their way through both state and federal courts, all the way to the Supreme Court.  Then there are the motions for reconsideration, motions to file new evidence, and all of the resulting appeals and judicial reviews.\n\nAs a Canadian, I have never figured out the American judicial system, with its two (state and federal) tracks, interlocutory appeals upon interlocutory appeals, etc.  We haven't had capital punishment in decades, but back then our system didn't allow all of these interlocutory appeals at various stages.  The Court of Appeal would hear one appeal after everything was done at the trial level.  After the Court of Appeal was finished with it, it would proceed to a retrial or to the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, then it would hear the appeal and make its decision.  If the death sentence were upheld, the Prime Minister and his cabinet would make a decision on whether to commute the sentence.  Generally, that was it.  No eleventh hour calls to the Supreme Court.  A couple of times, the Minister of Justice asked for a new reference before the Supreme Court (Coffin and Truscott), but that was it.  And it never took 20, or even 5 years.\n\nI suppose that this was partially due to the fact that, even back then, there were significantly less death sentences handed out in Canada compared to the U.S.
345600
The American Constitution is a living document whose meaning changes over time.  It was written by the founding fathers.  Thomas Jefferson's ideas were heavily relied upon.  Courts constantly interpret the meaning of the words, which is why it changes.  This explains, for example, why abortion rights have changed over time.