discussion 1 discussion topic assume that you were prosecuted for a cr
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