Court System

This article examines the United States judicial system from a sociological perspective. The author starts by briefly discussing the historic origins of the American legal system and continues with an explanation of the roles that the courts hold in society. This includes explanations of the structure of the court system as well as a brief discussion of the appeals process. The article is concluded with a discussion of the role of the court system in enacting social change.

Keywords Court; Judge; Legal System; Defendant; Plaintiff; Civil Court; Criminal Court; Social Change

Deviance & Social Control > The Court System

Overview

While the overwhelming majority of legal cases cycle through the judicial system by settling out of court, courts remain crucial to the orderly operation of American society (Friedman, 1984). The court system as we know it is not unique to the United States. The American legal system is the result of the synthesis of other legal traditions brought on by early immigration, with elements of Dutch, Spanish, English, French, and even Native American law within the system. Perhaps most definitively, due to English colonial supremacy, the American system to most closely resembles the English legal system (Friedman, 1984).

English Example

From the English legal system, the American court system has inherited several critical concepts.

• First, the principle of due process states that all accused persons must be granted the same fair and accepted procedures and that special treatment (or mistreatment) should not be granted to any individual.
• The second major principle is that of precedent. According to this principle, the law must be based on legal decisions made by previous judiciaries. This shows fairness with how others in the past were treated. In this way, our system of common law arose from actual legal controversies in which precedent was established. In this way, common law is dynamic, allowing change as society changes.
• Finally, the English system gave us the tradition of basing our courts around an adversarial system in which each party has an opportunity to argue for his or her side.

Within our judicial system, there are certain expectations of the way the interested parties behave. The accused are entitled to a trial by their peers for even the most trivial of cases. The judge is to act as a passive and impartial arbiter. His or her sole purpose is to maintain the order of proceedings and the behavior of individuals in the court. Attorneys representing either side are to guide clients through the legal process to the best of their capabilities. If all parties perform their jobs properly, the truth should be clear and justice will be served.

Inquisitorial vs. Adversarial

While we are most familiar with an adversarial system in which the involved parties (with the help of their lawyers) control the case and the judge acts as an arbiter, this is not the only way a judiciary may operate. In contrast to the adversarial system is the inquisitorial system. In this system, the judge builds the case, investigates facts, and tries to get to the bottom of the matter. This system trusts the judge to be fair (Friedman, 1984). To accompany our adversarial system, there is an appellate court system which remains obscure to most lay people, but is critical to the pursuit of justice. As set up in our adversarial system, there are two parties (each of which is typically represented by a lawyer). There is the defendant, who is the individual (or individuals) accused of committing some crime (Mullally, 2000). Opposed to the defendant is the plaintiff who is the party who supposedly suffered at the hands of the defendant (Mullally, 2000) Collective bodies, such as nonprofit organizations, corporations, or even state or federal governments, may play either of these roles.

The Power of American States vs. Federal Jurisdiction

The American court system most drastically varies from the English system based on regional differences between states in the Union. Each state has varying laws based on the history of that state and the culture of its initial inhabitants (Friedman, 1984). Historically, the most dramatic difference between states have centered around issues of race. Until the mid 1800s, these variances were most pronounced in issues surrounding slave ownership between states in the Northeast and Southeast (Friedman, 1984). Until the second half of the 1900s, this north/south divide centered around issues of segregation and voting statutes. Other differences between regions, such as differences in statutes regarding same sex marriage, continue to this day. In other, more subtle ways, the federal legal system makes our legal system quite complex. The degree of sovereignty granted to individual states allow those states to run their state court systems so as to reflect the culture of that state. For this reason, people may be under the jurisdiction of multiple courts at the same time, which can lead to complicated trials and difficulty between law enforcement agencies (Friedman, 1984).

Local County Courts

The vast majority of legal cases that go to trial are handled locally. Lower local and county courts typically handle the least serious offenses such as traffic violations and vandalism. At these lower levels, courts may be highly specialized, dealing in traffic offenses, small claims suits, or drug and alcohol offenses. Proceedings tend to be informal and to the point in order to cope with massive case loads. There has been some discussion among legal scholars over the degree to which justice is hindered by this informality, but this debate has little impact on the actual proceedings of the court (Friedman, 1984). Courts of General Jurisdiction are the basic trial courts of communities that are put aside to deal with more serious criminal offenses or monetary grievances. Even among these cases, only a small percentage of cases go on to full trial.

Appeals Court

In the situation that the accused can make an argument that the verdict was unfair, on the grounds that the trial was tainted in some way, in light of new evidence, or a variety of other reasons, his or her lawyer may file for an appeal. An appeal is an application to continue the legal struggle to the next highest level of the legal hierarchy. If found worthy by legal officials, the defendant is granted a new trial at a higher court. These appeal courts are higher courts that only see cases after they have been initially tried. In most cases, several appeals are possible before all legal possibilities are exhausted. The far more common reason for a case to cease seeking appeals is that the defendant simply exhausts his or her financial resources and is forced to give up.

Federal Court System

After the defendant exhausts his or her appeals on the state level, it is possible that the case may move onto the federal level. Cases that are of special interest to federal law enforcement, such as interstate smuggling, terrorism, and certain types of murder, are also tried in these federal courts. Each state has at least one standing federal court. Unlike state courts, there are no small claims or federal justices of the peace in federal courts. The basic federal court is called the District Court. This court is the first step in the federal system. These courts handle primarily cases that are federal offenses. The next highest court in the federal system is the circuit court. This court is confined primarily to appeals from the various regional federal courts. Only after the appeals to these elite circuit courts have been exhausted may the case move on to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is confined solely to appeals. The judges have a high degree of control over its own docket. The reasoning for this is that the judges are only to take cases that are of the highest importance to constitutional law. On a more micro level, there are several people that play roles in every court that are critical to the day to day function of the court.

Courtroom Staff

There are numerous critical staff involved in the courtroom to assure that the trial proceeds in an orderly manner; the most important among these people is the judge. The overwhelming majority of judges are individuals who have completed law school and have specifically chosen to start a career as a judge. Thus, most judges have vast knowledge of the legal system, but they rarely actually have firsthand experience on the other side of the bench (Friedman, 1984). Most judges have been elected by state law. This not only serves to eliminate bad judges via democratic means, but it also underscores the political nature of this position (Friedman, 1984). It is generally seen that judges should be held accountable to the public. The fact that many judges have been political activists as some point in their lives further stresses the political nature of this profession (Friedman, 1984).

Besides the judge, there are a number of other critical courtroom personnel that serve to maintain the judicial process. The bailiff is responsible for courtroom security and enforcing etiquette and order within the court. This individual usually has law enforcement experience, usually as a police officer with police training (Mullally, 2000).

The clerk of court is responsible for administrative functions of the court; coordinating and processing cases for the region the court resides over (Mullally, 2000). The clerk of court, however, is usually not present in the courtroom due to the sheer volume of cases that must be processed. The courtroom clerk serves as a representative of the clerk of court in the courtroom and is responsible for organizing the cases, and the information associated with those cases, that are assigned to the judge so as to avoid any unneeded confusion. As part of the job, a clerk may keep track of courtroom information such as courtroom minutes, names of parties, procedures, and each party's exhibits (Mullally, 2000). The filing clerk serves the court by performing functions such as stamping documents, basic filing, collecting fees, issuing docket numbers, and routing of property in the court's possession (Mullally, 2000). The court reporter is responsible for making a record of court proceedings by taking extensive notes on the proceedings (Mullally, 2000).

Contrary to public perception, most cases do not involve juries, and not all juries perform the same tasks. While every individual is entitled to a trial by jury by his or her peers, the system as it stands tends to discourage jury trials in minor matters that can be resolved via plea bargaining. If a jury is needed for a case, the Jury Commissioner is responsible for overseeing the compilation of jury lists, monitoring policies, and other functions surrounding jury selection (Mullally, 2000). Juries are broken into two types: Grand juries and trial juries.

• A grand jury is generally bigger and is responsible for determining if there is enough evidence for a trial. It is important to note that grand juries are only used in those situations in which it is questionable as to whether there is enough evidence; they are not required and in most cases they are not even necessary.
• Trial juries are comprised of people from the community and are the type typically thought of when juries are mentioned (Mullally, 2000).

To accompany the courtroom's critical staff, there are also a number of secondary staff that serve important functions as needed, but the court may continue business without them on a day-to-day basis. Court interpreters are used in those situations in which parties or individuals involved in the case do not speak English; they may be hired on an as needed basis. Research attorneys are available upon the request of the judge. The job of these fully licensed attorneys is to provide legal research that may be relevant to the case. Law clerks perform legal research, prepare legal memoranda for the court, and draft proposals of legal decisions; these appointments are typically about a year long and held by individuals freshly out of law school. Law librarians are simply librarians who preside over a library that is dedicated to legal research; they rarely have any legal training to speak of. Probation officers and expert witnesses are commonly called upon by the court to provide their professional opinions of the case. Probation officers are typically responsible for overseeing either newly released felons or those who have avoided jail time but are in need of state supervision. Expert witnesses are individuals with specialized knowledge of some aspect of the case and may include professionals as varied as neurologists, criminologists, ichthyologists, or shoe salespeople. In other words, almost anyone who could be considered an expert could be an expert witness.

Trial Procedure

In order to understand the players discussed above, we must examine the way they interact during a trial. During opening statements for the trial, each side introduces their arguments to the judge and jury. During this phase, each side attempts to set the stage for their arguments. After opening statements, the prosecution begins its direct examination. During this time, the prosecution presents its evidence and witnesses in a logical way so as to build its case. The defense is permitted to cross examine each witness after the prosecution has presented them to the jury. Once the prosecution has rested its case, the defense is allowed to present its argument during the cross examination phase. In this phase, the defense presents its evidence and witnesses so as to present the innocence of the defendant. Much like what happened during direct examination, the prosecutor is allowed to cross examine each witness called by the defense. After the defense has rested its case, each side makes a closing statement during closing arguments. Before the jury is dismissed to render its decision, the judge instructs them on the grounds in which they are to render their decision. Once the jury comes to a decision, the judge decides the severity of punishment. Despite the apparent finality of the process, nearly every case has a chance to appeal the ruling for the purpose of overturning a conviction. After the trial has ended, in the event of an unfavorable verdict, the defense is able to apply to appeal the verdict.

Types of Trials

While the general structure of how trials work is nearly identical based on whether it is criminal or civil, there are many variations that the trial's outcomes and causes may take that make them worth individualized discussion. Civil trials are those in which jail time is not a potential punishment; these crimes tend to be deemed by society as not as serious in nature as criminal offenses would be. We will now discuss a few of the types of trials that involve the average individual. Many civil trials fall into the category of tort law. Tort law generally states that individuals must maintain their property in a way that is not harmful to others. Tort law allows for the prosecution of cases in which personal injury or property damage occurs due to the improper maintenance of property. An example of this type of crime could involve the possession of a dangerous dog or a company's violation of environmental regulations. These cases may involve a dog attacking a mail carrier or gasoline leaking out of a tank of a gas station and contaminating an aquifer. Intentional misconduct involves those acts in which and individual commits an act that a rational individual would recognize as creating the risk of harm form others. These types of acts include assault, false imprisonment, libel, invasion of privacy, trespassing, or fraud. Cases of negligence involve the failure to do what a reasonable person would have done under similar circumstances. These instances include medical malpractice, poor care of children, or not intervening in a situation where someone is a great risk of being harmed. Strict liability cases involve individuals who engage in dangerous activities that pose a great likelihood of harm to others and another individual winds up being injured as a result. These are but a few types of civil suits. Others include contract suits, business suits, intellectual property suits, labor law violation suits, antitrust suits, and various types of property suits.

Applications

The Law in Action

Due to the variety of societal ills that often become apparent within the judicial system, the court system is of great interest to sociologists. Areas in which social ills are highlighted include plea bargaining, trial outcomes, the apparent fairness of a trial, which cases go to trial, jury selection, and how long an individual is held before he or she even comes to trial. This section will examine a few of the reasons sociologists study the court system.

As hinted to above, the vast majority of crimes involve a guilty plea on behalf of the defendant. Defendants may do this for a variety of reasons. They may simply want to own up to doing what they did, they may want to simply pay their punishment and get on with their lives, or they may engage in plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is the process through which a deal is struck between the defendant and plaintiff in which the defendant usually receives lesser charges in exchange for the guilty plea.

There are both stated and unstated reasons that most cases do not go to full trial. Due to the overwhelming number of cases that plead guilty, most cases stop before a trial is even necessary. At arraignment, the accused individual is formally informed of the charges against him. At this point, the defendant is asked for a formal plea. If the plea is innocent, the trial date is set; if the plea is guilty, the process ends here. After arraignment, a preliminary hearing is held in which the prosecution presents its witnesses and evidence of the crime. At this point, the defending attorney is allowed to cross examine the witnesses and question the merit of specific pieces of evidence. At the end of the preliminary hearing, the judge decides if evidence is sufficient to warrant further proceedings. While the defense and prosecution may engage in plea bargaining at any time, it most typically occurs after evidence has been presented at the preliminary hearing. At a pretrial conference between the two sides and the judge, pleas are formally presented. If the plea is not accepted by the defense at this time, legal proceedings continue.

Trial Fairness

Plea Bargaining

A more nefarious factor surrounding a trial is the social status of the accused. Going to trial is very expensive and requires the expenditure of considerable resources on behalf of the defendant. At a minimum, the defendant is required to travel to the courthouse and usually miss work. The wise defendant will hire a lawyer; the services of whom do not usually come cheap. In this way, a plea bargain acts as the cheaper (but not always just) alternative. Thus, for the simple reason of money, the rich often are treated much better by the legal system than the poor.

Jury Selection

Another factor that brings into question the fairness of trials is jury selection. During this process, each side selects jurors and attempts to create the "ideal jury" for their case. Obviously there is usually contention between the prosecution and defense as to what constitutes an ideal juror. For example, a poor man accused of stealing a stereo so that he can pay his rent is more likely to seem sympathetic to other poor people. For this reason, his lawyer may attempt to select poor people for the jury while the prosecutor will attempt to select richer people who would never be in such a situation.

Racial & Ethnic Identity

Multiple aspects of both the accused and alleged victim may also impact the outcome of the trial. If the accused actually does go through with his or her right to a trial, there are several issues surrounding fairness with regard to identity. Most familiar in contemporary American culture are the issues surrounding racial and ethnic identity in the court system. Sociologists, journalists, and individual accounts more than document the realness of racial profiling in determining who is picked up and how he or she is subsequently treated by the police. Furthermore, certain racist assumptions held by the judge or jury could be influential in determining the course of the trial.

Class Status

Less familiar to us in American culture are the ways that class can impact the court system. Crimes typically committed by upper class individuals are not seen as nearly as grievous as those committed by the lower classes despite the great damage these crimes do to society. The rich are more likely to commit crimes such as embezzling due to their social position, while the poor are more likely to commit crimes such as purse snatching. Since purse snatching is seen as more violent and harmful to society than embezzling, we are more likely to punish this crime harshly. However, the purse-snatcher is unlikely to get away with more than fifty dollars while the embezzler is capable of stealing millions of dollars from hundreds of people.

Age

Another aspect of identity that has major implications to the trial is the age of the accused. In fact, an entirely separate system exists for those under 18 years of age. This is because our society generally sees minors, those under the age of 18, as not as accountable for their actions as those who are over 18. For this reason, all but the most heinous of crimes committed by minors are tried in juvenile court as opposed to adult court. Juvenile law varies from adult law in two major aspects.

• First, because the minor is not seen as fully responsible for their actions, parents may be found guilty or responsible for the actions of their child.
• Second, because those under 18 are seen as being more capable of reform than adults, they are given less severe punishments and put into rehabilitative programs so that they may reform (Lundman, 2001).

Emotional issues surrounding a crime can also be greatly detrimental to the ability of a defendant to receive a fair trial. Socially taboo or highly emotional crimes such as the rape of a child, serial murder, or torture are often very difficult for those involved with the trial to deal with in a completely objective, unemotional way. Additionally, if either the defendant or the plaintiff is especially likeable or unlikable, this may also impact the ability of those involved in the trial to act objectively and unemotionally.

Viewpoints

Law & Social Change

Researchers have consistently shown that there is a significant relationship between law and social change (Friedman, 1984). This may be surprising to some due to the fact that law is resistant to social change. Legal revolutions generally follow social revolutions. While law's reluctance to adopt social change causes it to lag behind the rest of society, once it does accept social change, that change becomes more concrete and less likely to become undone. In this way, the courts channel social change and determine the role change will play in social life (Friedman, 1984). An excellent example of such change can be found in the transitions of African American status during the 20th century.

In the 20th century, African Americans began to take legal action to better their lives; the National Association of Colored People (NAACP) was responsible for the bulk of these actions. In 1896, a judge ruled in the case of Plessy v Ferguson that racial segregation was constitutional as long as the separated facilities were equal in all aspects. Under this interpretation of the law, there was nothing wrong with separating black students from white students in public schools as long as students in both white and black schools received educations of equal quality. Unfortunately, due to the power and prestige enjoyed by white people during the period, separate facilities were very rarely equal. White schools were consistently better equipped than black schools, and black schools were often in disrepair. The Separate but Equal doctrine was overturned in 1954 in the case of Brown v Board of Education. This case ruled that despite the efforts of elected officials, the educations of black and white students in segregated areas remained grossly unequal. Therefore, segregated schools would have to be shut down and students would have to be integrated. This was highly controversial among whites who feared how this action would impact the quality of education their children would receive, as well as other concerns that were more based in racist assumptions than reality.

Similar struggles for equal rights continue in contemporary American society surrounding the prosecution of homosexual behavior, and, therefore, homosexual and bisexual individuals. Very much in the way major judicial cases were overturned in the case of racial segregation, major cases surrounding the legality of homosexual behavior have been altered. Prior to 2003, several states held laws, known as sodomy laws, that made certain sexual acts illegal. While the lurid details of these laws varied greatly from state to state, they all intended to dictate the private sexual behavior of individuals. While many of the sexual acts prohibited by these laws are common among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals and bisexuals, heterosexuals were very rarely prosecuted for these crimes. In fact, individuals were very rarely solely accused of crimes associated with sodomy laws, but rather they were nearly always added to additional charges.

Much like laws surrounding segregation, sodomy laws were first upheld before they were struck down. The first challenge to these laws came in the 1980s in the case of Bowers v Hardwick in Georgia. In this case, the laws were upheld. It was not until 2003 that sodomy laws were once again brought into question in the case of Lawrence v Texas. In this case, the United States Supreme Court found state sodomy laws unconstitutional and subsequently overturned these laws in all states in which they existed.

The controversy exhibited by sodomy laws is, and still remains to a large degree in our society, that of the individual's right to privacy. Specifically, the cases mentioned above focused on the right of individuals to engage in certain types of sexual behavior in the privacy of their own homes. Beyond issues of sexuality, this remains a major issue of our time. The debate over whether we, as American citizens, have a right to privacy is a major controversy of our time. This same controversy is brought up surrounding the War on Terror and the ability of government to know what citizens read, access on computers, and other activities that go on in their homes. The connection between these two seemingly disjointed issues shows not only the implications of this controversy but also the sweeping power of the court system to institute change.

Terms & Concepts

Adversary System: A system in which the parties (and their lawyers) control the case. The judge acts as an arbiter. This is the type of court system used in the United States

Bailiff: Responsible for courtroom security and enforcing etiquette and order. This individual usually has law enforcement experience and police training

Courtroom Clerk: This individual is a representative of the clerk's office in the courtroom. The courtroom clerk is in charge of cases that are assigned to the judge. He or she also organizes cases for the judge and generally keeps track of courtroom information such as minutes, names of parties, procedures, and each side's exhibits.

Court Interpreter: Used in the case that parties involved do not speak English; may be hired on an as-needed basis.

Court Reporter: Makes a record of court proceedings by taking extensive notes.

Defendant: The person in the trial who is accused of doing something illegal.

Due Process: The fair and accepted procedures for enforcement of the law.

Expert Witness: Individuals with expert knowledge on a topic pertinent to a case.

Filing Clerk: Stamps, files, collects fees, gives docket numbers, routes filed property, etc.

Grand Jury: This jury is larger than a petit jury and is responsible for deciding if there is enough evidence for a trial prior to the actual trial.

Judge: The individual who, in an adversarial judicial system, acts as a neutral arbiter so that the jury may come to a conclusion.

Jury Commissioner: Oversees the compilation of jury lists, monitoring policies, and other functions surrounding jury selection.

Law Clerk: Performs legal research, prepares legal memoranda and drafts proposed legal decisions; most serve for one year following law school.

Law Librarian: Exactly that; they rarely have legal training.

Petit Jury: The jury we typically think of when we conceptualize a jury. This group of people is responsible for making a decision of guilt or innocence at the conclusion of a trial.

Plaintiff: The person who supposedly has suffered some legal wrongdoing in a trial.

Precedent: The law must be based on previously established principles. This shows fairness with how others in the past were treated.

Research Attorneys: Full time, licensed attorneys who provide research at the request of judges.

Bibliography

Friedman, L. (1984). American law. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Lundman, R (2001). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency (3rd Ed). New York: Oxford University Press.

Mullally, D. (2000). Order in the court: A writer's guide to the legal system. Cincinnati: Writer's Digest.

Murphy, J. (2011). Drug court as both a legal and medical authority. Deviant Behavior, 32, 257–291. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=58667610

Reeves, A. R. (2011). Judicial practical reason: Judges in morally imperfect legal orders. Law & Philosophy, 30, 319–352. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60229441

Sprott, J. B., Webster, C., & Doob, A. N. (2013). Punishment severity and confidence in the criminal justice system. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 55, 279–292. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86380722

Weber, M. (1954). Law in economy and society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Suggested Reading

Brooks, T. (1992). The Supreme Court and legal change: Abortion and the death penalty. University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill.

Cohen, T.H. (2008). General civil jury trial litigation in State and Federal Courts: A statistical portrait. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5, 593–617. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=34168801&site=ehost-live

Espinoza, R. E., & Ek, B. (2011). An examination of juveniles being tried as adults: Influences of ethnicity, socioeconomic status and age of defendant. National Social Science Journal, 37, 30–37. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65481621

Mirchandani, R. (2008). Beyond therapy: Problem-solving courts and the deliberative democratic state. Law & Social Inquiry, 33, 853–893. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=35347853&site=ehost-live

Mullally, D. (2000). Order in the court: A writer's guide to the legal system. Cincinnati: Writer's Digest.

Roach-Anleau, S. (2000). Law and social change. London: Sage.

Rose, M.R. & Diamond, S.S. (2008). Judging bias: Juror confidence and judicial rulings on challenges for cause. Law & Society Review, 42, 513–549. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=34137183&site=ehost-live

Tiger, R. (2011). Drug courts and the logic of coerced treatment. Sociological Forum, 26, 169–182. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=57828336