Week 3 Discussion: The Judiciary: Structure, Jurisdiction, Pretrial, Bail, Plea Bargaining, and Trial

4/28/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Wright.0304.18.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,ch06summary,ch07,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,ch07summary&conten… 1/44

The Courts 6

6.1 Introduction

6.2 The Structure of the Court System

The Federal System
The State System

6.3 The Courtroom Work Group

6.4 Pretrail, Bail, Plea Bargaining, and Trial

Booking
Preliminary Hearings
Grand Jury
Arraignment

© Guy Cali/Corbis/AP Images

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able  to:

Understand the structure and function of the federal, state and local court system

Identify the key actors in the courtroom and understand their importance and specific functions

Identify the steps in the criminal justice system

Understand the structure, functions, limitations, and key actors in the criminal justice court systems and how they
interact with one another

Chapter Outline

4/28/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Wright.0304.18.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,ch06summary,ch07,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,ch07summary&conten… 2/44

The Judge
The Prosecutor
The Defense Attorney

Plea Bargaining
The Criminal Trial

6.5 Chapter Summary

Critical Thinking Questions

Key Terms

Web Links

4/28/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Wright.0304.18.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,ch06summary,ch07,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,ch07summary&conten… 3/44

© Associated Press

Richard Jewell, a former security guard who was
erroneously linked to the 1996 Olympic bombing, is
questioned by the media as he returns to his Atlanta
apartment.

Stop and Think 6.1

What would be the possible consequences if powerful
lawmakers could force the judiciary to bring charges
against individuals suspected of violating the law? How
do these possible consequences illustrate the importance
of maintaining an independent judiciary?

6.1 Introduction
Richard Jewell was working as a security guard during the 1996 Summer Olympics held in Atlanta. He was walking through Centennial Park when he discovered a
suspicious package lying on the ground. He immediately notified the police and began evacuating individuals from the area, including individuals inside a nearby
building. The package contained three pipe bombs weighing in at 40 pounds. The bombs were surrounded by nails.

At 1:20 in the morning the pipe bombs exploded, sending nails in all directions. One person was killed at
once and another 111 were injured. Almost immediately, Richard Jewell was hailed as a hero for saving the
lives of innocent spectators. Yet within hours, the FBI had labeled Jewell as a “person of interest” in the
crime. That began a media frenzy which essentially convicted Jewell of the crime in the public’s eyes.
Numerous media sources, for example, reported that Jewell fit an FBI profile of a lone bomber, largely
because he lived at home with his mother and aspired to be a police officer.

While Jewell was never arrested, his life was turned upside down by the intense media coverage. Every part
of his life was publicly dissected; rumors and speculation were fueled by the constant media speculation. The
FBI executed a search warrant and confiscated his weapons as well as, among other things, his collection of
Disney movies. Everywhere Jewell went, he was followed by the media and an army of FBI agents.
Eventually, however, it became clear that Jewell was not involved in the bombing and that his actions had
indeed saved the lives of many. Ten years after the incident, the governor of Georgia at the time, Sonny
Perdue, held a ceremony publicly thanking Jewell for what he had done. Jewell, however, never fully
recovered emotionally or psychologically from the years of scrutiny.

Jewell was never arrested for a crime, nor was he ever formally charged. His tragic case highlights the
dramatic impact that merely being suspected of a crime can have on a person’s life. While this case was
widely publicized, the same process plays out on a much smaller scale every day throughout the United
States. For many people, the mere accusation of having violated the law can generate a host of emotional,
financial, and professional consequences. Reputations can be lost, careers destroyed, families torn apart, and
life savings consumed merely by being listed as a “person of interest” in a crime. Arrest and prosecution can
generate much greater collateral consequences.

Few things in life are as serious as being accused of a crime, especially a serious crime or a sex-based
offense. The Framers of the Constitution understood this, and they understood that a court system controlled
by the government could not be relied on to be fair in its rulings or consistent in the application of law. For
these reasons, the Framers created an independent judiciary—that is, a judiciary that was not subject to the

political will of those in power. The president of the United States, members of Congress, elected officials, and even local police officers lack the legal ability to
directly influence the decisions of judicial officers. They cannot compel prosecutors to charge citizens with crimes, force judges to find a defendant factually guilty,
influence appeals decisions, or prevent the Supreme Court of the United States from invalidating a law. It is an independent judiciary, as the quotation from Amistad,
above, conveys, which protects the rights of the accused.

What happened to Richard Jewell was tragic, but in the end the system worked. A man was not
arrested, charged, or convicted of a crime for which there was no evidence of his guilt. Without
an independent judiciary, Mr. Jewell and thousands of others like him could easily find themselves
deprived of their livelihoods and freedom. Mr. Jewell was entirely cleared when the real bomber,
Eric Robert Rudolph, confessed to several bombings in his campaign of terror.

In this chapter, we will examine the American judiciary. We will examine the structure of the
American court system, with a focus on the responsibilities of each jurisdiction. We will examine
the roles of each member of the court, including the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the
defense attorneys. Moreover, we will examine what social scientists have found about how the
judiciary works—that is, how courts across the country operate in a day-to-day fashion, how cases
are processed, how individuals are adjudicated, how appeals are managed, and how laws get overturned by the courts. As you will see, the judiciary serves many
important functions in our criminal justice system and our society. Perhaps no other part of the American system of justice is as multifaceted, as insolated, and as
powerful as the court system.

4/28/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Wright.0304.18.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,ch06summary,ch07,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,ch07summary&conten… 4/44

©  Associated Press

Trial courts are the first courts to hear a case.

6.2 The Structure of the Court System
The American court system, like much of the rest of the criminal justice system, operates at different levels. There are 51 separate court systems in the United States.
The federal government operates a court system, as do each of the 50 states. Each court system (state and federal) comprises different types of courts.

At the first level are trial courts. These courts are responsible for:

Arraigning a defendant

Impaneling a jury

Hearing and evaluating evidence

Determining the facts

Pronouncing judgment

Imposing a sentence

Trial courts are the first courts to hear a case, and their decisions usually affect only those involved in the case. Trial courts are “finders of fact,” which makes them
different from other  courts.

At the second level are appellate, or appeals courts. These courts hear cases after a trial
court has ruled on them. In general, individuals found guilty of a crime are allowed to
appeal their conviction. However, appeals are built on matters of law and of procedural
safeguards—they are not built on matters of fact. In other words, appeals courts make sure
that the defendant received a fair trial and that the law was followed in convicting the
individual. Appeals courts assume that the facts of a case have been established by the
court. They ensure that the facts of the case were found fairly and by following legal
standards. Appeals courts focus on attorneys and the process—that is, they do not weigh
evidence but instead weigh matters of law and procedural justice. Unlike trial courts, where
a single judge is responsible for the court, appeals courts are usually staffed by panels of
judges.

Finally, the third level is the supreme courts. Each state has a supreme court, as does the
federal system. The federal U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and is also
known as the court of last resort. State supreme courts do not hear new evidence and do not
conduct new trials. Similar to appellate courts, they examine legal issues involved in
specific criminal cases, and they have the power to order new trials in situations where the
errors of lower courts were so significant that the defendant may not have received a fair
trial. State supreme courts also rule on the constitutionality of state laws and have the power to overturn or invalidate laws found to be unconstitutional. The U.S.
Supreme Court also has the power to overturn laws created by Congress or by any state.

An important concept in understanding the American court system is jurisdiction, which is the statutory authority of a court to hear a case. Courts in Alabama, for
instance, do not have jurisdiction to hear cases originating in Minnesota. Similarly, appellate courts do not have the jurisdiction to act as trial courts, and no court has
jurisdiction over the U.S. Supreme Court. At the state level, trial court jurisdiction often extends to criminal cases and depends on the location where the violation of
law occurred. This location is also known as venue. The venue of a trial can be changed when there is a substantial likelihood that a defendant would not receive a
fair trial where the crime took place. A court may approve a change of venue under these circumstances as long as the jurisdiction remains within the state.
Defendants can also request a change of venue.

The Federal System

The Constitution established the U.S. Supreme Court as a coequal branch of the federal government. Federal courts have jurisdiction when federal laws are violated.
Trial courts in the federal system are known as U.S. district courts. These courts are responsible for determining facts of alleged violations of the federal law. There
are 94 district courts in all, 89 in the United States and the rest in U.S. territories and Washington, DC. Most states have at least one federal district court, while
others, such as California, have more.

There are 678 U.S. district court judges. Judges are nominated by the president and are then confirmed by the Senate. Once confirmed, they are essentially allowed to
serve on the bench for life. This type of job protection is thought to encourage judicial independence and to help isolate judges from the political forces that could
influence their decision making.

Figure 6.1: Geographical Boundaries of United States Courts of Appeals and United
States District Courts
Each circuit spans one or more states.

4/28/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Wright.0304.18.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,ch06summary,ch07,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,ch07summary&conten… 5/44

© Stock Connection/SuperStock

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over federal cases, state disputes, and
issues involving federal and constitutional law.

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal district courts handle a limited range of criminal cases. In 2011, district courts processed 103,274 criminal cases. Most criminal cases handled by the federal
system are drug offenses (30,728 in 2011), immigration offenses (29,530), and theft and fraud offenses. While important, these numbers are small in comparison to
the 20 million criminal cases processed by the states in 2009.

Appellate courts in the federal system are known as U.S. courts of appeals, or U.S. circuit courts. There are 13 circuits, with each circuit spanning one or more
states. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, spans Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan, while the Seventh Circuit Court spans Illinois and
Wisconsin. Appeals court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. There are 179 federal appeals court judges. Each circuit has between 6
and 29 judges to handle the caseload.

Circuits handle appeals from individuals convicted by district courts within the circuit. In 2011, a total of 55,753 appeals were lodged with the federal appeals courts.
Of these, 12,377 were appeals related to a federal criminal conviction, and almost 15,000 were from prisoners—meaning that petitions from prisoners constitutes
almost half of all federal criminal appellate cases.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States is the most powerful court in the nation. It has jurisdiction over all federal cases, disputes between states, and all matters of
federal and constitutional law. For the court to hear a case, however, a federal question has to be involved or a question regarding the applicability of the
Constitution. Supreme Court decisions have affected every part of the criminal justice system, from the rights extended to criminal defendants, to the limits placed on
police, to how evidence can be collected. These decisions become precedent, or guiding legal doctrine, that all other courts have to follow.

For the most part, the Supreme Court is an appellate court and reviews cases from federal
circuit courts and from state supreme courts. Under very rare circumstances, the court can
act as a trial court—for example, when states have disputes with the federal government.
Again, these cases are exceedingly rare. The vast majority of cases managed by the court
are appellate cases from lower courts. Each year, the court receives over 10,000 appellate
requests. It grants review in about 100 of these cases and issues full opinions on 80 to 90
of them. Thus the likelihood of a case making it to the Supreme Court is rather small.

It would be impossible for the nine justices that compose the Supreme Court to hear every
appellate request. Instead, the court selects cases for review through what is known as a
writ of certiorari. The writ grants a review of a case settled by a state supreme court or by
a federal circuit court. The writ is essentially a command for a lower court to provide the
Supreme Court with the records of the case. For a writ to be granted, four justices have to
vote to approve it. This is known as the rule of four. In general, the court looks for cases
that involve unsettled law or important constitutional or legal questions or that provide an
opportunity to clarify the meaning of a law. The actual facts of the case usually matter less
than the broader legal and constitutional issues involved.

Once a case is chosen for review, the justices take time to research the legal issues involved. They then listen to oral arguments from the attorneys, read the legal
briefs submitted by the attorneys, and eventually vote on the matter in a case conference. A simple majority (more than half) wins the vote. Once the vote is

4/28/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Wright.0304.18.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,ch06summary,ch07,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,ch07summary&conten… 6/44

complete, majority and dissenting opinions are crafted and the decision is published.

Advocating for Justice
Finding purpose on the job can be difficult to find. But in a career of defense, protecting clients
on trial is a tangible way attorneys contribute to society.

Things to Consider:

Why does Jessica enjoy her job?

Who are her heroes?

How does Jessica see her role as providing a “check” on injustice?

The Supreme Court is composed of eight associate justices and one chief justice. Each justice is nominated by the president of the United States and is confirmed by
the Senate. Given the importance and power that comes from a lifelong position on the Supreme Court, public nomination hearings are held. Most of the time
nominations are confirmed.

The State System

States are home to a diverse number and arraignment types of courts. While each state has a criminal court system, embedded in most states are any number of local,
city, and county courts. These courts are typically funded by local or county governments, and they can hear a wide range of cases.

State trial courts can be defined by their jurisdiction. Courts of general jurisdiction, for example, differ from courts of limited jurisdiction. Courts of limited
jurisdiction—also known as inferior courts, lower courts, or municipal courts—hear only certain types of cases. Many, for example, hear misdemeanor crimes,
traffic cases, and cases that involve infractions of local laws. Limited jurisdiction courts also include specialized courts, such as mental health courts, family courts,
and drug courts. Moreover, they are usually charged with arraigning defendants and conducting preliminary and bail hearings for cases that may be transferred to
general jurisdiction courts. As you can see, limited jurisdiction courts manage many of the day-to-day problems that arise in the United States. Data from the
National Association of State Courts (2012) show that slightly over 13,500 limited jurisdiction courts handle over 70 million cases a year, the majority of which are
traffic cases. This represents an increase of about 10 percent since 2000 but only about a 1 percent change in the rate of cases per 100,000 residents. Limited
jurisdiction courts handled 66 percent of all court cases in 2009. Of these cases, 43 percent were traffic violations while only 14 percent were violations of the
criminal law.

Figure 6.2: Court Hierarchy
The different levels of courts have different jurisdictions.

Courts of general jurisdiction—also known as superior courts, district courts, or circuit courts—are tasked with handling relatively severe felony criminal cases,
although a general jurisdiction court can usually hear any felony case. General jurisdiction courts can also review cases from limited jurisdiction courts. In 2009,
there were about 2,000 of these courts in the United States. These courts handled 17 percent of the total 106 million cases heard by state courts. Of these cases, 3.8
million were for criminal cases not involving traffic offenses. The number of criminal cases handled by these courts has risen 6 percent since 2000. However, the rate
of criminal cases (per 100,000) heard by courts of general jurisdiction has declined by 7 percent since 2006.

4/28/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Wright.0304.18.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,ch06summary,ch07,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,ch07summary&conten… 7/44

Stop and Think 6.2

Suppose that in order to save money, Congress passed a
law creating a single U.S. court. What would be some of
the potential consequences of such an act? What would
be some of the benefits?

State appellate courts also take a variety of names, but they all have one overriding purpose: to ensure that defendants have received fair trials. As a reminder,
appellate courts do not generally examine matters of fact but instead examine matters of law. Every defendant is entitled to a fair trial. However, each trial brings
with it a unique set of circumstances. Recognizing this, appeals courts try to make certain the convicted person’s trial was fair, not perfect. The vast majority of
appeals are turned down by appeals courts. An appeals court can affirm the decision of the lower court or it can reverse the decision. In rare instances, an appeals
court can order a new  trial.

Figure 6.3: 2011 of the Minnesota Court System
Salaries and types of cases of Minnesota’s Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and the District Court.

© The Minnesota House of Representatives House Research Department—Judicial Branch.

Sixty-three percent of all appeals are appeals by right, where the legislature has guaranteed a
convicted person the right to an appeal. Appeals courts must hear these cases. Appeals by
permission, where a convicted person asks an appellate court for review, account for only 21
percent of all cases. Death penalty cases constitute less than 1 percent of all appeals and are
usually automatic upon conviction.

4/28/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Wright.0304.18.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,ch06summary,ch07,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,ch07summary&conten… 8/44

6.3 The Courtroom Work Group
Across the United States, courts work daily to manage a wide range of criminal cases. Managing a large number of criminal cases, with all the legal complexities tied
to each case, is no small task. To coordinate these efforts requires a system where all the people involved in the system know the formal and informal rules and work
collaboratively to process cases. Collectively, the various actors within the courtroom are known as the courtroom work group (Eisenstein & Jacob, 1977).

The primary task of any courtroom work group is to process cases. Obviously this requires cooperation between all the actors and an implicit agreement on how best
to manage the workload. This image of the cooperative courtroom is very different from what the public commonly assumes and what our adversarial system
advances. People are sometimes shocked to see exactly how most courts in America actually operate. It is not uncommon to see large groups of people being called
into court all at once and processed. Defense attorneys may see their clients for a few minutes before they are called by the prosecutor. In most jurisdictions, justice
looks very much like an assembly line. For the most part, the criminal trials you see on television are not at all representative of how the court system works most of
the time.

Assembly-line justice is the rule in lower courts. This is especially true in traffic courts and other courts of limited jurisdiction, especially those in larger
municipalities. Given the high number of arrests, about 14 million per year, many courts face staggering caseloads (LaFountain et al., 2011). The large number of
cases that need to be processed influences conditions inside America’s courts, where expediency and efficiency in case processing become priorities. Without these
priorities, the American court system would collapse under the weight of all the cases it has to process. The courtroom work group helps to move cases through the
system because the actors share the same values of cooperation and efficiency, they take steps to minimize conflict, and they share in the decision-making process.

Courts across America process cases daily. This means that courts have substantial experience in processing normal crime, or categories of crimes that the courts see
on a regular basis. While the facts about each case may be somewhat unique, they also share many commonalities. Courtroom work groups may thus see all
robberies as pretty much the same, and similarly, they may see all minor assaults the same, unless there were specific circumstances surrounding the case, such as if
someone was seriously harmed. Some crimes, however, are not as frequent and/or the circumstances stand out. These crimes may be processed differently by the
work group.

The presence of a courtroom work group does not mean that our system of justice always reflects an assembly line. When trials take place, they are usually well-
managed events. More importantly, when trials take place, the standard practices and priorities of the work group may change, especially in trials of serious crimes.
In these rather limited instances, the more traditional adversarial system operates.

So who are the actors in American courtrooms? In the next few sections we examine the roles of each judicial actor.

Careers in Criminal Justice:
Criminal Defense Attorney

The world of private criminal defense.

Things to Consider:

Would you have any issues engaging clients in prison as their attorney?

Did the job of criminal attorney meet your expectations and is this a position you would be
interested in pursuing?

The Judge

The judge is the primary officer of the court who is responsible for protecting the rights of a defendant and, at the same time, listening attentively to the state’s
allegations of criminal offenses. Judges make decisions about various aspects of trials, including making rules on legal issues, managing legal objections, ruling on
the admissibility of evidence, and providing juries with instructions. Judges keep order in their courtrooms and generally do not allow either the prosecutor or the
defense attorney to step outside their roles in ways that would compromise the legitimacy of the court.

Judges have unique personalities and particular ways in which they want trials to be
conducted. Some judges, for example, are known to be very strict in what they will allow in
court, while others are known to allow attorneys greater latitude in how they work. The
point is that judges often vary in unique ways, so the operations of their courts vary.
Nonetheless, the central job of the trial court judge is to make certain that the trial follows
procedural rules and is fair.

Appellate judges have a different role. Because appeals courts are interested primarily in
matters of law, they rarely challenge evidence or trial court findings of fact. That said,
appellate judges examine the decisions of trial court judges with an eye to making sure that
the process was fair and free of any procedural or substantive errors.

Judges in general jurisdiction courts and in appellate courts are almost always licensed
practicing lawyers. The same is not always true in limited jurisdiction …