Search for question
Question

Discussion 1 Discussion Topic Assume that you were prosecuted for a criminal case in your home State of Illinois, and you believe that evidence used against you at the trial was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. You lost the criminal trial and want to appeal as high as you can in the state and federal court systems to vindicate your position. How would your appeal process go if it reached the United States Supreme Court for a decision? Be sure to describe and name each court that you would proceed through to reach the United States Supreme Court. NOTE: 2 OUTSIDE REFERENCE NEEDED FOR Illinois, USA Appellate Procedures, And beyond. Your initial postings should be at least 340 words, responsive to the discussion questions, accurate, and thought-provoking. At least two references are required for each initial post, following APA style. Quotes and references must have appropriate attribution. Include "in-text" APA Citations, including page numbers. Tudor must be APA Orientated. I am a long-term customer. Do not train new employees on my time. I request Rohan MO if available Textbook APA Citation: Neubauer, D. (2016). Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States (7th ed.). Cengage Learning US. https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781337025942 Textbook excerpts: Page 3: Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), finding a constitutional right to privacy that includes abortion, continues to divide the nation. State supreme courts likewise interpret their own respective state constitutions, and those decisions at times also prove controversial. For example, decisions declaring legislatively passed tort reform unconstitutional pro- duce strong condemnation from the business community. Federalism The United States has a federal form of government; that is, power is di- vided between state governments and the national government. Where to draw the line between the respective powers of state and national governments has been one of the longest-running political battles in the United States. The issue clearly divided the framers of the Constitution, and some of those differences of opinion eventually were settled by a bloody civil war. Often, the U.S. Supreme Court has been called on to decide disputes over federal versus state power, and, not surprisingly, its decisions frequently provoke profound con- troversy. For example, how far may cities and states go in imposing gun control? Like-wise, courts are fac For example, decisions declaring legislatively passed tort reform unconstitutional pro- duce strong condemnation from the business community Page 32: Judicial Decisions Appellate court decisions also remain an important source of law. According to the com- mon-law tradition, courts do not make law; they merely find it. (Table 2.4 shows how to locate court decisions.) But this myth, convenient as it was for earlier generations, cannot mask the fact that courts do make law. This tradition nonetheless suggests a basic difference between legislative and judicial bodies: Legislative bodies are free to pass laws boldly and openly. Moreover, their rules are general and all-encompassing. Courts make law more tim- idly, on a piecemeal basis, and operate much more narrowly. To paraphrase law professor Lawrence Friedman (1984), legislatures make law wholesale, whereas courts make it retail. Although U.S. law today is primarily statutory and administrative, vestiges of judge- made law persist. The law governing personal injury (tort law) remains principally judge-made law. Page 34: Substantive and Procedural Law Law can also be characterized as either substantive or procedural. Substantive law is the part of the law that defines rights. When lawyers speak of “a right," they mean a legal right, not a moral one. Thus, a legal right is the ability to control certain actions of other people. Every right has a corresponding duty. For example, pedestrians have the right to cross the street on a green light, and drivers have a duty to avoid hitting those people with their cars. In creating rights (and their corresponding duties), the law defines the legal relationship between the citizen and the state, and among citizens themselves. Prime examples of sub- stantive law include contracts, property, torts, wills, and criminal prohibitions. Procedural law, in contrast, establishes the methods of enforcing legal rights. Thus, it involves the rules by which cases are heard and decided. To ensure the fair and orderly administration of justice, procedural laws govern the conduct of cases in court. Rules of court specify how lawsuits are filed, procedures for exchanging information prior to trial, applicable time frames, and the like. Similarly, the rules of evidence seek to ensure that decisions will be made on the basis of reliable facts. The main rules of court governing the federal judiciary are the Federal Rules of Civil, Criminal, and Appellate Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. These rules also serve as models for many states. In addition, most courts have adopted local rules of court governing specific practices in their locality. The principal purpose of procedural law is to protect against arbitrary actions. Quite liter- ally, procedural law prevents people from taking the law into their own hands. In U.S. law, the most essential procedures are captured by the phrase "due process of law," which is specified in several places in the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions as well. No exact Page 35: Remedies A court's official decision about the rights and claims of each side in a lawsuit is known as a judgment. If the plaintiff wins, the judgment also contains a remedy, which is the relief granted by the court. The remedies granted depend on whether the case involves law or equity. Under common law, some litigants seek a declaratory judgment, which is a judicial determination of the legal rights of the parties. At other times, litigants seek the restitution of goods that they are rightfully entitled to. But mainly parties suing under common law seek monetary damages, that is, money that a court orders paid to a person who has suffered a legal injury. The two principal types of monetary damages in American law are (1) compensatory damages—payments for the actual harm suffered, which may include medical bills, lost income, or pain and suffering; and (2) punitive damages-monies awarded to a person who has been harmed in a particularly malicious or willful way. The latter are not related to the actual cost of the injury or the harm suffered, but rather are designed to serve as a warning to keep that sort of act from happening again. (Thus, both the civil and the criminal law involve deterrence.) Under equity, litigants seek a very different type of remedy called an injunction, which is a court order that requires a person to take an action or to refrain from taking action. For example, a court may issue an injunction prohibiting a company from dumping industrial wastes into a river. To qualify for an injunction, the suing party must demonstrate to the court that it will suffer irreparable damages—in this case, that dumping will pollute an im- portant natural resource. Consistent with the preventive and remedial heritage of equity, a judge may issue a preliminary or temporary injunction to stabilize an emergency situation. A permanent injunction is granted only after the issues have been fully tried in court. An injunction is very powerful and can be enforced by the contempt power of the court. Thus, a person who violates an injunction can be fined or sent to jail. Page 41: The Supreme Court's split decisions on cases involving religious symbols on government property typically draw immediate praise or condemnation. Although Salazar went largely unnoticed by the public, Court watchers saw it as another example of the Court's uncertainty about how to interpret what the First Amendment really means regarding the establishment of religion, making the task only that much harder. Split decisions on religious symbols enable each side in the larger debate over religion in the public square to claim a measure of victory. Page 48: Jurisdiction Court structure is largely determined by limitations on the types of cases a court may hear and decide. Jurisdiction is the power of a court to decide a dispute. A court's jurisdiction can be further subdivided into geographical, subject matter, and hierarchical jurisdiction. Geographical Jurisdiction Courts are authorized to hear and decide disputes arising within a specified geographical jurisdiction. Thus, a California court ordinarily has no jurisdiction to try a person accused of committing a crime in Oregon. Courts' geographical boundaries typically follow the lines of other governmental bodies such as cities, counties, or states. Two principal complications arise from geographical jurisdiction. First, events that occur on or near the border of different courts may lead to a dispute over which court has jurisdic- tion. If the law of the two jurisdictions differs significantly, then determination of which law applies can have important consequences for the outcome of the case. Second, a person accused of committing a crime in one state may, for whatever reason (flight or happenstance), be in another state when he or she is arrested. Extradition involves the surrender by one state (or country) of an individual accused of a crime outside its own territory and within the territo- rial jurisdiction of the other. If an American fugitive has fled to a foreign nation, then the U.S