8 American Criminal Courts

In December 2023, Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two young children, found herself entangled in a legal battle with the state of Texas as she sought an abortion following the diagnosis of severe health-related issues with her fetus, including Trisomy 18, a fatal chromosomal condition, and a spinal abnormality. Court filings emphasized the dire prognosis, stating that there was “virtually no chance that their baby would survive to birth or long afterward” (as cited in Sasani, 2023, para. 3). Moreover, the continuation of the pregnancy posed life-threatening risks to Cox herself, putting her life and reproductive systems in jeopardy. Despite the undeniable unviability of the fetus and the critical risks to the pregnant mother, Cox faced insurmountable hurdles due to Texas’s stringent abortion laws. In response, she filed an emergency lawsuit, seeking judicial permission for her OB-GYN to perform the abortion without fear of prosecution, arguing that her situation fell within the medical exceptions outlined in Texas’s abortion laws (In re State, 2023). Despite a favorable initial ruling by a lower court judge, the conservative Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, filed an appeal to overturn the decision, leveraging the state’s unique law allowing private individuals to sue doctors involved in illegal abortions, significantly narrowing the potential medical exceptions in the state’s already restrictive abortion laws. Only hours later, the Texas Supreme Court, dominated by Republican justices, sided with Paxton, prohibiting Cox from obtaining the needed abortion within the state and compelling her to seek the procedure in another state (Sasani, 2023).

While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly enumerate a right to privacy, a series of court rulings over the years have recognized various aspects of this right, including the crucial right of medical privacy. In the 1965 landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted the constitutional right of married women to access contraceptives, laying a foundation for the subsequent Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. This watershed ruling extended the right to privacy to encompass a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy. The 1992 challenge to Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reinforced women’s right to privacy, affirming that states cannot impose significant obstacles for abortions before 24 weeks. For nearly six decades, the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy was encapsulated within the broader framework of the right to privacy. However, the landscape shifted dramatically in 2022 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, eliminating the classification of the right to choose as a right to privacy. This shift empowered state legislators as primary regulators on abortion, curtailing women’s autonomy in decisions crucial to their lives, families, and bodies.

This deeply contentious criminalization of abortion in specific states has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of a once-recognized right, sparking numerous legal challenges across the country. These debates introduce ethical complexities, delving into questions about a woman’s autonomy over their body, the right to privacy, and the delicate balance between individual rights and societal interests. The uncertainty surrounding the legal status of abortion, coupled with often lengthy court processes, can have tangible consequences for women in need of timely reproductive healthcare. Court delays and legal restrictions can impede access to safe and legal abortion services, potentially exacerbating physical and emotional distress, particularly in cases where abortions are essential to preserving a woman’s health or life.

As you engage with this chapter, reflect on the intricate dynamics between court rulings and the rights afforded to U.S. citizens. Consider how these legal decisions influence societal consensus surrounding actions deemed criminal and the impact of these rulings on the very fabric of our collective American values . Delve into the profound impact that shifts in court rulings can exert on society, recognizing the intricate interplay between these legal determinations and our individual freedoms. Acknowledge the far-reaching consequences of such decisions, understanding the crucial effects they have on individuals’ lives and the broader tapestry of our interconnected society. In exploring these themes, reflect on the delicate balance between legal frameworks and personal liberties, appreciating the complexity inherent in the evolving relationship between the law and the people it governs.

Figure 8.1

Overview

Criminal courts serve as the backbone of the American legal system, exerting a profound influence on the fabric of everyday life and molding societal norms. These courts act as arbiters of justice , deciphering and applying laws that delineate acceptable behavior within American society. Beyond merely adjudicating criminal offenses, their judgements contribute to the evolution of social norms , ideally, reflecting the collective values and expectations of society. Landmark decisions in these courts set precedent with repercussions extending beyond the boundaries of the courtroom. These decisions establish new standards, offering vital guidance to individuals and communities alike, shaping the course of justice and influencing social norms. Such cases often spark public debate, catalyzing legislative changes and shifts in public opinion. The sentences administered by criminal courts not only affect the lives of the convicted but also educate the broader populace about the potential consequences of certain actions. In this way, criminal courts play a pivotal role in the ongoing negotiation and definition of societal norms, delicately maintaining the balance between individual liberties with societal expectations.

The following chapter embarks on an exploration of American Criminal Courts—a journey through the intricate tapestry of justice that has unfolded over centuries. Our narrative begins with a glimpse into the roots of the American legal system, detailing the early practices of Colonial America shaped by the contours of English common law. This historical foundation laid the groundwork for the evolution of the American court system, culminating in the establishment of the Adversarial System—a pivotal development that fundamentally influenced the course of justice.

Our journey then leads us through the complex landscape of the Dual Court System. As we unravel the intricate interplay between federal and state jurisdictions, we give close examination of how these two realms of authority coexist. Within this legal mosaic, we shed light on the integration of tribal courts, recognizing the diversity of legal structures that constitute the American justice system.

As we progress, the spotlight shifts to the courtroom and trial, delving into the multifaceted roles of courtroom actors and the intricacies of the trial process. We dissect the intricate mechanisms of justice, revealing the processes that lead to verdicts and punishments. Then we proceed with an investigation of punishment and sentencing, detailing the mechanisms guiding the judicial determination of consequences.

In the final portion of this chapter, we engage in thoughtful discussion about the challenges and controversies casting shadows over the justice system. Delving into the disquieting realm of the “tough on crime” approach, contemplating the imperfections that hinder the pursuit of justice within a system designed to safeguard truth and fairness.

Figure 8.2

This chapter invites you to traverse the vast terrain of American Criminal Courts—a realm where the echoes of history resonate in contemporary legal practices amid the ongoing pursuit of justice. Join us as we proceed to unravel the layers of this intricate tapestry, discovering the complexities, triumphs, and challenges that define the evolving American justice system.

8.1 Introduction to American Courts

The legal and court practices in Colonial America were firmly rooted in English common law, yet the exigencies of the New World demanded notable adaptations. While Colonial America endeavored to adhere to the principles of English common law, the distinct needs and challenges of the burgeoning colonies compelled a departure from strict emulation (Friedman, 2005). The great geographical distance from the English crown afforded colonial courts a certain flexibility in legal proceedings, allowing them to adapt to the specific needs and challenges of their communities. Consequently, the legal framework underwent substantial modification to better suit the unique circumstances of Colonial America, reflecting the pragmatic adjustments essential to address the evolving demands of society in the New World.

Figure 8.3

Colonial courts operated with a significant degree of local autonomy, and each colony developed its own unique court structure and system, which evolved over time. Puritan values played a pivotal role in shaping legal practices in the colonies, particularly in New England. Judges often doubled as religious figures and politicians (Friedman, 2005), further intertwining legal codes with religious principles, perpetuating outcomes for certain offenses as crimes against both civil and religious authorities. At the local level, petty crimes were typically presided over by a single magistrate or justice of the peace. County courts, responsible for handling more serious crime and a broad spectrum of cases, including civil disputes, criminal offenses, and matters related to local governance, were essential. As caseloads increased, colonies implemented the “courts of appeals,” often composed of the governor and his council. In rare instances, the unsuccessful party of a case could appeal to the justice system in England.

The scarcity of legal professionals in the colonies was a prevalent reality, leading to a predominantly layman presence among court actors. This scarcity necessitated a simpler legal system due to the inherent lack of legal expertise. Given the limited availability of attorneys and the financial constraints preventing many from securing legal representation, individuals frequently found themselves defending their cases in court. In some instances, residents possessing some legal knowledge would step into the role of amateur attorneys, although it was not uncommon for prosecutors to be witnesses attempting to support their case (Friedman, 2005). Juries, typically selected from the neighborhood where the crime occurred, played a pivotal role in both criminal and civil trials. They actively participated in determining the facts of a case and deciding the appropriate punishment.

Figure 8.4

Punishments in Colonial America were often severe, designed not only to penalize the offender but also to act as a deterrent (see Curious Punishments of Colonial Days). Forms of punishment included fines, public humiliation, corporal punishment, and, in extreme cases, capital punishment. Stocks, whipping posts, and pillories were fixtures in colonial towns for executing physical punishments, as illustrated in Figure 8.4 above. Unfortunately, these court practices were often marked by the mistreatment of Indigenous peoples, with legal proceedings frequently biased against Native Americans in disputes over land, resources, and cultural differences.

The courts in Colonial America underwent swift evolution, and by the end of the Revolutionary War, concerns about tyranny and the concentration of power in the government arose (Friedman, 2005). In response, President George Washington signed the Judiciary Act of 1789, establishing the federal court system while allowing each state to maintain its unique court system. Despite their significant influence today, the early years of the U.S. Supreme Court saw limited power, as evidenced by the resignation of the first Chief Justice after only a few months to become the governor of New York. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, a notable shift occurred, marking a decrease in the governing power of state courts. This transformation involved the transfer of considerable power and authority from the state courts to the state legislative branch.

Figure 8.5

Profound transformations reshaped the American court system following the Civil War and the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, leaving an indelible mark on the structure, jurisdiction, and guiding legal principles of American courts. Concurrently, the post-Civil War era marked a distinctive shift toward heightened federal authority, exemplified by the expansive growth of the federal court system and an increased emphasis on constitutional interpretations. The abolition of slavery and the influx of European migrants in the 1870s fueled the American Industrial Revolution, instigating significant economic and social changes. As newly emancipated Black individuals and European immigrants flocked to urban centers for employment in burgeoning factories, the rapidly expanding U.S. population necessitated adaptations in the court systems. This led to the establishment of specialized courts to address emerging challenges in crucial areas such as labor, business, and corporations. Simultaneously, in 1891, Congress solidified these changes by enacting the Judiciary Act, which established nine courts of appeals, aligning with each judicial circuit.

Figure 8.6

However, the response to the growing state populations resulted in poorly organized court structures. States adapted reactively, hastily establishing city courts and specialty courts, resulting in overlapping jurisdictions with consequential implications (Friedman, 2005). This chaotic expansion across various state courts resulted in a diverse array of state court structures, fostering confusion that persists as an issue in contemporary society.

8.1.1 Adversarial System

The U.S. legal system employs an adversarial model as its approach to seek fairness and truth. In the adversarial system , two opposing parties engage in legal dispute before an impartial judge or jury. Notably, the U.S. criminal system adheres to the presumption of innocence for the accused, placing the burden on the prosecutor to demonstrate the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . Both defendants and prosecutors are afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, fostering a dynamic process of evidence examination and argument. This stands in contrast to legal systems in numerous other countries that do not follow the adversarial system. In these systems, a singular government entity typically conducts criminal investigations and establishes guilt.

While courts may evoke the imagery of a traditional courtroom trial, the predominant method in the contemporary legal landscape is plea bargaining, which concludes nearly 95% of all criminal cases in the U.S. (Bibas, 2006). As a result, plea negotiation assumes a pivotal role in the court system. Even though these negotiations typically transpire privately between the defense and prosecution, they constitute an integral aspect of an adversarial process. This is underscored by the presence of an impartial judge, who, serving as a neutral arbitrator, retains the discretion to either accept or reject the negotiated agreement mutually agreed upon by the two opposing parties.

8.2 Dual Court System

The U.S. court system is founded on the principle of federalism , which seeks to find a delicate equilibrium between a robust central authority and the autonomy of individual states, thereby accommodating the flexibility and adaptation required for diverse regional needs and preferences. In a federalism system, power is distributed between a central, national government and regional, state governments. Each level of government possesses its own distinct set of powers and responsibilities, typically delineated in their respective constitutions, thereby establishing a framework for the relationship between the national and state governments. Operative within their designated spheres, both levels of government function independently. In the U.S., this translates into the establishment of a federal court system by Congress, while each individual state retains the authority to formulate its own judicial structure. This dual court system is meticulously designed to balance the power between the federal and state governments, concurrently facilitating the resolution of disputes on various levels. Such a structure not only upholds the independence of federal and state courts within their respective jurisdictions but also ensures a nuanced and effective legal framework.

Figure 8.7

8.2.1 Jurisdiction and Venue

In the early years of our nation’s development, federal courts wielded minimal authority. It wasn’t until the mid-nineteenth century that Congress initiated the passage of laws aimed at expanding the scope of the federal court system. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court occupies a crucial position in our country, issuing rulings on a wide array of issues that have a profound impact on every U.S. citizen.

Jurisdiction is the authority of power vested in a court to hear and decide a particular case. This fundamental concept determines the exact court authorized to adjudicate a specific legal matter, which serves as a critical foundation for the fair and effective administration of justice, preventing arbitrary legal actions and promoting the proper application of laws. The U.S. court system encompasses four primary types of jurisdiction: personal, subject matter, geographical, and hierarchical (Hemmens et al., 2010).

Personal jurisdiction is a fundamental concept in the legal realm, encompassing a court’s authority over the parties, individuals, or entities embroiled in a legal dispute. This jurisdiction hinges on several key factors, primarily whether the involved parties are citizens of the state in which the court operates. Additionally, personal jurisdiction extends to cases where individuals or entities commit acts within the state, irrespective of whether the nature of these actions is criminal or noncriminal. In essence, this legal principle ensures that a court has the necessary authority to intervene and preside over cases involving specific individuals or entities based on their connection to the geographical jurisdiction of the court. This nuanced understanding of personal jurisdiction serves as a cornerstone in the legal framework, providing a structured approach to adjudicating cases and delineating the court’s authority over the parties involved.

Subject matter jurisdiction is a crucial aspect of a court’s authority, dictating its ability to adjudicate specific types of cases. This form of jurisdiction ensures that different courts are designated to handle distinct categories of legal matters, aligning with their expertise and focus. For instance, family courts specialize in cases related to familial disputes, while bankruptcy courts exclusively address matters pertaining to bankruptcy proceedings. Moreover, specialized courts, such as those dedicated to juvenile, drug, or alcohol cases, fall under the purview of subject matter jurisdiction, ensuring that cases are heard by judges with expertise in the relevant legal field. This delineation of authority not only streamlines legal proceedings but also ensures that cases are adjudicated by judges well-versed in the nuances of the specific legal area, fostering a more informed and effective justice system.

Geographical jurisdiction , often referred to as venue , plays a pivotal role in determining the location where a case will be heard within the legal system. It essentially defines the geographical boundaries within which a court is authorized to adjudicate cases, spanning areas such as cities, districts, counties, or states. In simpler terms, for a court to entertain a case, the occurrence of the crime must align with the specific geographic jurisdiction of that court. For example, if an assault takes place in Washington State, the jurisdiction to prosecute the perpetrator resides with Washington State and the perpetrator cannot be prosecuted by another state, such as California; however, there are certain exceptions. Under certain circumstances, either the prosecutor or defendant can petition for a change of venue if they can demonstrate that the current venue is unsuitable for ensuring a fair trial. Such requests often arise in high-profile cases where prejudice against the victim or the defendant, or pre-existing opinions and bias relating to the trial are present within the community, potentially compromising the impartiality of the proceedings.

Another challenge related to venues is that not all crimes are confined to a single jurisdiction. For example, if an individual commits the same crime in two different counties within the same state, it is the responsibility of the respective counties to determine which court holds jurisdiction. However, in cases where a crime, such as kidnapping, unfolds in two distinct states, both states can retain jurisdiction. Consequently, in this particular instance, the defendant could face kidnapping charges in both states without contravening the prohibition of double jeopardy.

Hierarchical jurisdiction represents the authority levels of courts within a tiered organizational structure, where each level possesses specific jurisdiction and responsibilities for certain types of cases. This hierarchical arrangement ensures a systematic approach to legal proceedings, appeals, and the interpretation of laws, with higher courts having the authority to review and overturn decisions made by lower courts within their respective jurisdictions. This tiered structure contributes to maintaining consistency in legal interpretation and provides an effective mechanism for resolving disputes at varying levels of complexity.

The concept of hierarchical jurisdiction is observable in both state and federal court systems. At the state level, there are trial courts of limited jurisdiction, handling specific case types like traffic, juvenile, or misdemeanors, and trial courts of general jurisdiction that address a wide range of criminal and civil cases without limitations. Many states also have intermediate courts of appeals, which have the power to overrule or affirm decisions from trial courts, and state supreme court, that act as the ultimate authority on state legal matters. In the federal system, district courts serve as trial courts, courts of appeals function as intermediate appellate courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court stands as the highest court in the U.S.

Figure 8.8

8.2.2 Federal Courts

The U.S. federal court system is organized in a three-tiered pyramid. The foundational tier comprises trial courts, strategically located across ninety-four judicial districts. Above this tier, there are thirteen courts of appeals, organized into twelve regional circuit courts of appeals and one federal circuit court of appeals. At the pinnacle of the system stands the U.S. Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate appellate court. Typically, cases progress through the hierarchy from trial courts to courts of appeals, and in exceptional circumstances, they may reach the U.S. Supreme Court for final adjudication. This hierarchical structure ensures a systematic approach to legal proceedings, appeals, and the interpretation of laws. Higher courts have the authority to review and overturn decisions made by lower courts within their jurisdiction, maintaining consistency in legal interpretation and providing a mechanism for resolving disputes at different levels of complexity.

8.2.2.1 Federal District Courts

In 1789, Congress enacted the Judiciary Act, marking a significant milestone in the establishment of U.S. district courts. These federal district courts have evolved since their inception to become the backbone of the federal court system, serving as the primary trial courts. The strategic distribution of the ninety-four federal district courts across the U.S. ensures that every state, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, has access to at least one district court. These district courts are commonly recognized as the “workhorses” of the federal court system, managing substantial caseloads with efficiency. In 2021 alone, these courts processed a staggering 526,477 cases, encompassing 461,478 civil cases and 64,999 criminal cases (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2021). As of 2023, there were 677 active federal district judges, according to Federal Courts Management Statistics for that year (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2023).

Federal district court judges presiding over criminal trials hold lifetime appointments, a selection made by the President and subject to approval from the Senate. This lifetime tenure ensures judicial independence and stability. Additionally, these courts employ both full-time and part-time magistrate judges, who play a crucial role in the legal process. Magistrate judges are responsible for conducting preliminary hearings and issuing warrants, contributing to the effective functioning of the federal district court system. This comprehensive framework ensures the fair and efficient administration of justice in the federal courts, upholding the principles of the U.S. legal system.

8.2.2.2 U.S. Court of Appeals: Circuit Courts

The U.S. Courts of Appeals, commonly known as federal circuit courts, function as intermediate appellate courts . Their primary responsibility is to review decisions made by the U.S. district courts, ensuring adherence to legal procedures and accurate interpretations of the law. The U.S. is separated into 13 geographical circuits, each encompassing one U.S. Federal Courts of Appeals. Figure 8.9 illustrates the distribution of all 50 states across 11 circuits, with the District of Columbia and the federal government each having one dedicated circuit. This structural arrangement facilitates a systematic and efficient appellate process within the federal court system.

Figure 8.9

The U.S. Court of Appeals only hears appeals cases within their designated circuit. For example, if a defendant opts to appeal their conviction for a federal crime committed in Idaho, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, their appeal would be adjudicated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This principle applies uniformly to all nine states, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, collectively residing within the 9th circuit’s jurisdiction.

In the appellate process, when a case is presented before an appeals court, a three-judge panel convenes to deliberate on both oral and written arguments. Subsequently, the panel casts votes to determine whether to uphold, overturn, or modify the ruling of the lower court. In this decision-making process, a majority vote, such as 2-1 or 3-0, serves as the conclusive outcome for the three-judge panel. This mechanism ensures that a clear majority perspective shapes the ultimate decision regarding the disposition of the case.

The interpretation of laws has occasionally diverged among different circuit courts of appeals. For instance, the case of Whren v. United States in 1996 marked a pivotal moment in addressing the constitutionality of employing race as the sole factor for law enforcement stops. However, subsequent rulings by various circuit courts introduced nuanced perspectives on this matter. In 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. Montero-Camargo, declared that it is unconstitutional for police officers to consider race as any factor when deciding to stop an individual. This decision took a more restrictive stance against the use of race in law enforcement stops. Conversely, in the year 2000, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in Brown v. City of Oneonta, presented a contrasting viewpoint by ruling that race can be a legitimate factor for a law enforcement stop, as long as it is not the sole determining factor. This decision allowed for a more flexible approach in considering race within a broader context of factors influencing a police stop. These varied interpretations underscore the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of race in law enforcement practices, with different circuit courts adopting divergent perspectives on the constitutional boundaries of such practices.

Similarly, legal interpretations diverged when it came to the provision of sex reassignment surgery for transgender inmates. In the case of Gibson v. Collier (2019), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is constitutional for prisons to decline offering sex reassignment surgery to transgender inmates. This decision upheld the discretion of prisons in determining the medical procedures provided to inmates undergoing gender transition. Contrastingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took a different stance in Edmo v. Corizon (2019), asserting that prisons are obligated to provide sex reassignment surgery for transgender inmates. This ruling established a legal precedent that emphasizes the necessity of ensuring access to gender-affirming medical procedures for transgender individuals within the prison system. These divergent decisions highlight the ongoing legal debates and varying perspectives surrounding the rights and medical care of transgender inmates, with different circuit courts adopting contrasting positions on the constitutional obligations of prisons in providing sex reassignment surgery.

Figure 8.10

8.2.2.3 U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court, often hailed as the apex of the federal judiciary and deemed the “court of last resort,” holds the pivotal role of the ultimate interpreter of federal law. Endowed with the authority to scrutinize decisions originating from lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court boasts nationwide jurisdiction , enabling it to adjudicate cases from any corner of the country.

In contrast to federal circuit courts, which are compelled to hear all federal criminal cases on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court operates with a notable distinction. The U.S. Supreme Court possesses discretionary power, with very few exceptions, to choose whether to accept or decline appellate cases. Its docket is carefully curated, and the Court exercises selectivity in determining which cases it will review. When a party seeks review by the U.S. Supreme Court, they must first file a petition for a writ of certiorari . The decision to accept a case is guided by “the rule of four,” requiring at least four justices to vote in favor of hearing the appeal. While the majority of Supreme Court cases involve writs of certiorari (constituting 85-90% of the docket), there are alternative avenues for case acceptance, such as interstate disputes or when lower courts seek certification from the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify or rule on a specific legal matter (Hemmens et al., 2010).

The U.S. Supreme Court routinely grapples with constitutional issues, legal conflicts between circuit courts, and cases of paramount national significance. Annually, the Court faces a considerable caseload, with approximately 7,000 cases seeking its review, and it ultimately accepts only around 100 to 150 cases for adjudication per year (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, n.d.). Presently, the U.S. Supreme Court is composed of nine justices, including a chief justice; although, it is crucial to note that Congress holds the authority to adjust the number of justices. Justices, appointed for life, are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, underscoring the enduring and influential nature of their roles on the nation’s highest court.

8.2.3 State Courts

Court structures across the U.S. exhibit considerable diversity, typically with significant variations observed from state to state. Each state’s court system is shaped by its unique legal history, jurisdictional requirements, and legislative framework. As a result, state court structures encompass a spectrum of complexity, ranging from relatively straightforward arrangements, as depicted in Figures 8.12 and 8.13, to more intricate systems, as illustrated in Figures 8.14 and 8.15 below. While some states may have a centralized court system with a hierarchical structure, others may feature a multifaceted system characterized by numerous tiers and specialized courts that preside over different types of cases. Additionally, the complexity of court structures often reflects the diversity and volume of legal matters within a state, as well as historical and cultural factors influencing the development of its legal system. These differences in court organization reflect the unique legal traditions, historical developments, and legislative mandates within each state, contributing to a rich tapestry of judicial administration across the nation. Understanding these variations is crucial for legal practitioners, policymakers, and citizens alike in navigating the judicial landscape and ensuring fair and effective administration of justice.

Figure 8.11

Figure 8.12

Figure 8.13

Texas State Court Structure

Figure 8.14

8.2.3.1 Courts of Limited jurisdiction

Trial courts of limited jurisdiction serve as vital components of the legal system. Encompassing various names such as magistrate’s courts, municipal courts, and county courts, these courts preside over the most common legal matters, primarily addressing minor criminal and civil offenses, traffic violations, and breaches of local ordinances. Beyond these responsibilities, these courts may also be tasked with setting bail, conducting preliminary hearings in more serious cases, and issuing warrants. While not universally present in every state, courts of limited jurisdiction are common; although, it is important to note that the majority of these courts function independently from the state court system, being both funded and operated by city or county governments (Hemmens et al., 2010).

Since trial courts of limited jurisdiction typically operate independently from the state court system and decide cases regarding relatively minor offenses and punishments, defendants are not granted a traditional trial and instead, their cases are heard only by a judge. Furthermore, if a defendant is unsatisfied with the court’s decision, rather than proceeding to an appellate court, they may request a trial de novo , which constitutes an entirely new trial. Depending on the state, these new trials are heard at the same court of limited jurisdiction or escalate to a court of general jurisdiction.

While rarely making headlines in the news and media, courts of limited jurisdiction bear the majority of the caseload. Despite their lesser visibility, these courts play a crucial role in addressing the most common legal matters, often representing the only direct interaction with the legal system for many individuals. For instance, in 2022, Florida’s courts of limited jurisdiction presided over a substantial 78.4% of all incoming trial cases, according to the Court Statistics Project (Gibson et al., 2023). Similarly, during this same year, in North Carolina, a significant 87.7% of all incoming trial cases were adjudicated by the courts of limited jurisdiction.

Figure 8.15

8.2.3.2 Courts of General jurisdiction

Courts of general jurisdiction, known by various names such as superior courts, circuit courts, district courts, or courts of common pleas, conduct trials for most felony cases and more serious misdemeanors, and civil cases. Additionally, they preside over all criminal and civil trial cases not designated for the courts of limited jurisdiction.

In instances where the potential punishment is substantial, the accused may opt for a jury trial, allowing them to present their case before a group of their peers. Alternatively, if there is no possibility of imprisonment or if the accused waives their right to a jury, a bench trial takes place, where the determination of guilt or innocence resides with a judge.

While courts of general jurisdiction typically manage fewer cases than their limited jurisdiction counterparts, their workload is contingent on the specific needs of the population they serve. For instance, expounding on the previous example, Florida’s courts of general jurisdiction received 21.6% of incoming trial cases in 2022, while North Carolina’s received only 12.3% during that same year (Gibson et al., 2023). In more densely populated regions, the courts of limited jurisdiction might be more prevalent, allowing general jurisdiction courts to focus exclusively on felony cases. Conversely, in less populated areas, the court of general jurisdiction may assume responsibility for adjudicating all criminal cases, spanning from more serious felonies to very minor offenses.

8.2.3.3 State Intermediate Appellate Courts

Intermediate appellate courts constitute the subsequent tier in the judicial system, with 40 states incorporating some form of these courts (Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, 2014). Designated by various names such as the court of appeals, appellate division, appellate court, or appeals courts, depending on the state, these institutions are central to the legal structure. Notably, in states such as Nebraska, a singular appellate court serves the entire state, while other states with more extensive judicial infrastructures may boast multiple appellate courts divided into judicial districts. Washington State, for example, strategically places their appellate courts into three judicial districts located in Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane. By contrast, ten states, such as Wyoming, lack an intermediate appellate court, therefore directing all appeals in these states straight to the state supreme court. Details about each state’s court structures, including appellate courts, can be found on the National Center for State Courts’ “State Court Structures” interactive map.

Unlike courts of general or limited jurisdiction, appellate courts do not conduct trials. In most states, a single intermediate appellate court case is typically adjudicated by three-judge panels simultaneously, as depicted in Figure 8.16 below. However, the exact number of judges on a panel can vary by state. During the intermediate appellate court process, the panel of judges review records from trial courts, including testimonies, evidence, and overall procedures, without the inclusion of new evidence or information. One crucial responsibility they bear is ensuring procedural fairness for the appellant throughout the trial court proceedings. However, rulings of appellate courts significantly influence the legal landscape, shaping legal precedent, guiding lower courts, and contributing to the overall fairness of the judicial system.

Figure 8.16

8.2.3.4 State Supreme Courts

The state supreme court, also known as the court of last resort, handles appellate cases and plays a pivotal role in the legal hierarchy. Most appeals cases are heard on a discretionary basis, granting the court the option to either accept or decline a case. If the court opts to decline, it signifies the court’s lack of position on the case, and the decision of the intermediate appellate court stands unaltered.

The composition of state supreme courts varies, with states having five, seven, or nine justices serving on the bench. In forty-seven states and the District of Columbia, there are term limits for supreme court justices. By contrast, in states such as Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, justices are given a lifetime appointment, although New Hampshire imposes an age limit of 70 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch, n.d.).

State supreme courts often serve as the final recourse for most cases, unless the losing party can demonstrate that the case has involvement of a federal law or the U.S. Constitution. In such instances, the losing party can directly appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Similar to the intermediate courts of appeals, state supreme courts do not entertain new evidence or retry cases. Instead, their role is to ensure the constitutional adherence of the process, scrutinize the interpretation of laws by lower courts, and uphold the principles of justice.

Figure 8.17

8.3 Courtroom Actors

Courtroom actors consist of the various individuals who operate within a courtroom setting, playing pivotal roles in the legal process within the judicial system. Each actor within this framework has a well-defined role, specific responsibilities, and a set of duties aimed at ensuring that legal proceedings unfold fairly, transparently, and in strict accordance with the law. Their collective efforts contribute indispensably to the functioning of the legal system and the administration of justice.

These actors collaborate cohesively to guarantee the ethical conduct of legal proceedings, protect the rights of all parties involved, and uphold the principles of justice. The dynamic interaction among these courtroom actors is essential for fostering the fair and effective functioning of the legal system. It is through their coordinated efforts that the legal process maintains integrity and serves its purpose in adjudicating disputes and upholding the rule of law.

8.3.1 Judges

Judges play a pivotal role within the legal system, serving as impartial arbiters responsible for interpreting and applying the law to ensure justice. These individuals, often appointed or elected, possess the authority to preside over legal proceedings, make legal determinations, and deliver judgments. To make informed decisions aligned with the rule of law, judges must possess a deep understanding of legal principles, precedent, and statutes. Judges typically hold qualifications that include legal education, extensive legal experience, and a commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness. The effectiveness of the judiciary relies on the competence, integrity, and diversity of its judges, contributing to the overall credibility and public trust in the legal system.

As senior officers in the judicial system, judges shoulder multifaceted roles, responsibilities, and functions to uphold the rule of law, including issuing warrants, ruling on a defendant’s guilt during a bench trial, and deciding the type and length of sentences for guilty parties. As the ultimate authority of the court, judges play a crucial role in courtrooms by presiding over cases, making legal rulings, and ensuring adherence to established procedures and constitutional principles. Primarily tasked with interpreting and applying the law to resolve legal disputes, judges serve as impartial arbiters, providing a fair forum for litigants to present cases. They are expected to consider only relevant facts and legal arguments, ensuring that legal proceedings adhere to established procedures and constitutional principles. In addition, judges determine precise guidelines for their courtroom, including rules on the admissibility of evidence, issuing rulings on legal matters, instructing juries, and maintaining professional decorum among all individuals in the courtroom. Judges are entrusted with maintaining order in the courtroom, ensuring fair trials, and safeguarding the rights of individuals involved in legal proceedings, delivering judgments with significant legal consequences. The decisions rendered by judges carry substantial weight, influencing legal precedents and shaping the trajectory of the justice system.

Beyond the courtroom, judges engage in continuous legal education to stay updated on evolving laws and precedents. Their commitment is crucial as they play a vital role in setting legal precedents and influencing the development of jurisprudence. Dedication to impartiality, integrity, and the fair administration of justice is essential for maintaining public trust in the legal system. In essence, judges function as guardians of justice, embodying principles of equity and the rule of law in their pursuit of ensuring a just and orderly society.

8.3.1.1 Judicial Selection

Judicial selection transpires through four primary avenues: appointment , partisan elections , nonpartisan elections , and the merit system or Missouri Plan . The federal government and certain states adopt a single selection process. However, some states use a combination of these methods. For instance, Kansas utilizes partisan elections in 14 judicial districts, while the remaining 17 districts follow a gubernatorial appointment process with noncompetitive retention elections (Gordon & Huber, 2007). The diversity in selection processes reflects the varied approaches adopted by different jurisdictions to ensure an effective and fair judiciary.

8.3.1.1.1 Appointment Selection

The process of judicial appointment, the oldest and still widely employed method of selecting judges in the U.S., plays a crucial role in shaping the federal and state judiciary. In this approach, the key individual responsible for the selection is usually the “chief executive of the jurisdiction” (Hemmens et al., 2010, p. 111). In the federal courts, the President nominates a candidate for a judgeship, whose confirmation or denial hinges on a simple majority vote by the Senate. States employing this type of judicial appointments usually task the governor with nominating judges, which is known as gubernatorial appointment [GL/]. Once a nominee is selected by the governor a subsequent confirmation or denial of these nominations occurs through the state senate or another legislative body. The tenure of appointees can vary, with the possibility of lifetime appointments or appointments for a single term, followed by participation in either a contested or uncontested retention election. Removal of lifetime-appointed judges usually necessitates impeachment , while retention elections provide a democratic avenue for the public to remove a judge. The judicial appointment process thus reflects a balance between executive authority and democratic principles of accountability in deriving the composition of the judiciary.

The judicial appointment approach, integral to the selection of judges, is not without its concerns and criticisms. One prominent issue is the potential for political bias and manipulation by presidents or governors who select judges with the intention to advance partisan agendas. Specifically, lifetime judicial appointments incur the risk that judges may be appointed based on partisan agendas rather than their qualifications or commitment to impartial justice (Gillman, 2001). This introduces the risk of injecting political considerations into the judicial selection process, compromising the integrity of the judiciary by obscuring the requisite impartiality and independence. A judiciary perceived as politically biased often erodes public trust in the fairness and confidence in the legal system.

Historically, the practice of nepotism and patronage has been a major cause for concern in the appointment of justices, extending across all levels of the federal and state court systems. Regrettably, the appointment of judges has at times been influenced by personal relationships, favoritism, or political affiliations, rather than based on merit, qualifications, and dedication to upholding the law. Such practices undermine the principles of fairness and diminish public competence in judicial selection, critical for the justice system to effectively fulfill its obligations.

Figure 8.18

Lifetime judicial appointments, while offering the advantage of stability, give rise to questions regarding accountability. For instance, judges with lifetime tenure may find themselves insulated from public opinion, presenting a challenge to holding them accountable for decisions that could be perceived as biased or out of touch with the evolving dynamics of societal values. Furthermore, these individuals are likely to face fewer checks and balances, primarily due to the infrequency and difficulty associated with successful impeachment proceedings, making the removal process arduous and rare. This lack of a more straightforward mechanism for accountability can pose challenges in situations where a judge’s conduct or decisions become a cause for concern.

These concerns underscore the need for ongoing scrutiny and reform in the judicial appointment process to ensure the judiciary’s independence, competence, and public trust. Balancing a qualified judiciary, free from political bias, while preserving democratic principles of accountability is essential for maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

8.3.1.1.2 Partisan Election

Apprehensions about judicial accountability prompted political reforms in the 1820s and 1830s, with influential figures such as Andrew Jackson advocating against what they perceived as the undemocratic nature of appointing judges (Geyh, 2008). This era witnessed a shift in the philosophy surrounding the selection of judges, with a growing emphasis on mechanisms that would enhance democratic principles and increase public involvement in the judicial selection process. The push for reform aimed to address perceived shortcomings in the existing system by facilitating “judicial independence from the political branches” through a more direct connection between the judiciary and the electorate (p. 88).

As a result of reform, the partisan elections approach emerged, constituting a method of selecting judges where registered voters play a decisive role in determining who will hold judicial positions. Mississippi and Georgia pioneered its implementation, and by 1909, thirty-five states had adopted this judiciary selection method (Geyh, 2008).

In the partisan elections, judicial candidates openly align themselves with a political party, often receiving endorsements, financial support, and campaign resources to gain public support for the upcoming democratic election. Consequently, candidates may be perceived as aligning with ideologies underpinning their political affiliation, introducing a potential layer of bias into the selection process, raising public concern about the impartiality of the elected judge.

Despite the democratic nature of this process, critics argue that partisan elections overly politicize judicial positions, leading to the erosion of public trust in the judiciary (Sobel & Hall, 2007). Studies further suggest that residents in states using partisan elections are more likely to harbor distrust in the courts compared to those in states without partisan elections, highlighting the potential drawbacks of introducing political dynamics into the judiciary selection process (Jamieson & Hardy, 2008). This approach to judiciary selection reflects a delicate balance between democratic processes and concerns about potential biases within the judicial system.

8.3.1.1.3 Nonpartisan Election

In response to fears of political corruption and concerns about the competence of judges in the early 20th century, certain states undertook reforms in the judicial election process by introducing nonpartisan elections . This alternative approach aims to enhance the democratic nature of the judiciary selection process by allowing citizens to elect judges without the overt influence of political party affiliations. Unlike partisan elections , where candidates openly align themselves with a political party, nonpartisan elections involve judicial candidates who do not explicitly associate with any political group. However, despite the reduction in direct political influence, candidates may still convey subtle ideological leanings through their language and campaign strategies. By the 1930s, twelve states had adopted this alternative approach, aiming to strike a balance between democratic principles and reducing the influence of political parties in the selection of judges (Geyh, 2008).

Despite its democratic nature, nonpartisan elections are not without criticisms. Opponents argue that political affiliation provides valuable insights about a judicial candidate, and depriving voters of this crucial information limits their ability to make informed decisions. This limitation could potentially impact the transparency and accountability of the judicial selection process, as voters may lack essential context when choosing individuals to serve in the judiciary.

8.3.1.1.4 Merit Selection

The merit selection process, often known as the Missouri Plan , was first introduced in Missouri in 1940, offering an alternative approach to judicial selection (Missouri Courts, n.d.). This method prioritizes the qualifications and competence of candidates over their political affiliations, aiming to establish a judiciary marked by skill, knowledge, and impartiality. In this system, a nominating commission, consisting of professionals and legal experts, meticulously selects the most qualified candidates from an application pool and presents the final list to the appointing authority, often the governor. The commission evaluates candidates based on qualifications, experience, legal writings, and even temperament. Once chosen through the merit system, judges typically undergo a retention election, enabling the public to decide whether to retain or remove them from office.

However, retention elections face a significant challenge as they often attract minimal voter participation, raising concerns about their representativeness and democratic principles. The limited engagement is further compounded by the scarcity of readily available information regarding the judge’s work quality. To address this issue, some states have implemented measures to enhance transparency and voter awareness by providing evaluations of judges to the electorate. This initiative aims to empower voters with relevant information, enabling them to make informed decisions about whether to retain or remove judges from office during these elections.

Despite the merit system’s emphasis on selecting judges based on qualifications, critics contend that its success relies on the integrity of the nominating commission and a steadfast commitment to merit-based selection over political considerations. Skepticism persists about the potential influence of political factors, leading to concerns about the accountability of the judiciary within the merit selection process.

8.3.1.2 Insufficient Judicial Representation across Demographics

In spite of efforts to improve the accountability and impartiality of the judiciary and implement democratically principled selection processes, a substantial issue within the U.S. judicial system persists due to the inadequacy of establishing a demographically diverse pool of judges. An analysis of the racial composition of state court judges in 2014 by Tracey George and Albert Yoon (2017) revealed that 80% of all state judges were White Non-Hispanic, with 7% being Black, 5% Hispanic, and 7% categorized as others. Equally troubling is the gender disparity; despite women constituting 50% of the total population, only 30% of state judges were women. This lack of diversity raises concerns about the representation and inclusivity within the judiciary, highlighting the need for concerted efforts to address these disparities and foster a more inclusive and equitable judicial system. This lack of diversity raises questions about the inclusivity and representativeness of the judiciary, highlighting the need for concerted efforts to address these disparities and foster a more inclusive and reflective judicial system.

Figure 8.19

The deficiency in judicial diversity raises concerns about potential discrimination, particularly towards minority defendants. Cassia Spohn’s study in 1990 found that the race of the judge had minimal influence on sentencing violent felonies in Detroit. Her findings did suggest; however, that both Black and White judges exhibited a tendency to sentence Black offenders more severely than their White counterparts, suggesting that the defendant’s race is one of potentially several complex dynamics involved in the judicial decision-making process. Additional research by Stephen Demuth (2006) indicates further discrimination pertaining to accused requests for bail and offenders’ requests for release. Findings indicate that Black defendants have a 21% higher likelihood of being denied release compared to White defendants, while Hispanic defendants are 23% more likely to be denied bail than their White counterparts. These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of the relationship between judicial diversity and its potential impact on the treatment of minority defendants within the criminal justice system.

8.3.2 Prosecutors

Prosecutors designated under the executive branch serve as the legal representative for either the state or the federal government, safeguarding their respective interests. In early formative years, prosecutors were often private citizens responsible for both accusations of the offense as well as the litigation. As the nation progressed, the U.S. established dedicated prosecution offices, where the roles of prosecutors underwent a process of increasing specialization, and their duties were formalized. Concurrently, public officials, notably district attorneys, assumed the crucial responsibility of overseeing criminal prosecutions, selected either through official appointment or public elections. This restructuring aimed to streamline legal processes, fostering fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings. In modern society, crime is no longer viewed solely as an offense against an individual but is recognized as a transgression against the state. As a result, the use of private prosecutors has been gradually phased out, underscoring the public nature of legal proceedings, and striving for a more consistent and equitable administration of justice . In contemporary state court systems, three distinct types of prosecutors commonly arise: the state attorney general , the chief prosecutor , and local prosecutors .

The state attorney general serves as the highest legal officer in a state, playing a pivotal role in providing legal counsel to the government and representing the state’s interests in legal matters. Appointed or elected depending on the jurisdiction , the state attorney general oversees a wide range of responsibilities, including advising the governor and other state officials on legal issues, defending the state in legal disputes, and, in rare instances, prosecuting cases of statewide significance. As the chief legal advocate for the state, the attorney general operates with a broad scope, addressing both civil and criminal matters. This position is vital in ensuring the legality and constitutionality of state actions, while also contributing to the overall administration of justice within the state’s borders. The state attorney general’s role is multifaceted, requiring a balance between legal expertise, public service, and a commitment to upholding the rule of law.

The chief prosecutor , also known as the district attorney (DA), county attorney, state attorney, or solicitor, serves as a pivotal figure in the criminal justice system, overseeing the prosecution of criminal cases within a specific jurisdiction. Elected in most states and the federal government, except in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey, the chief prosecutor holds a position that combines legal expertise with political accountability (Hessick & Morse, 2019). This official is responsible for making crucial decisions regarding which cases to prosecute, representing the state or county in legal matters, and advising government officials on legal issues. However, the elective nature of the position introduces a political dimension, potentially influencing the chief prosecutor’s focus towards the preferences of voters rather than solely prioritizing the broader needs of society. The chief prosecutor plays a central role in shaping the direction of criminal justice in their jurisdiction, balancing legal responsibilities with democratic accountability.

Local prosecutors , often known as city prosecutors in more densely populated areas, play an important role in the criminal justice system at the community level. Employed by certain larger cities and counties, these legal professionals are primarily responsible for representing their respective municipalities in civil trials, offering legal counsel to local officials, and prosecuting criminal cases. In larger cities, city prosecutors often handle misdemeanor cases within the trial courts of limited jurisdiction, dealing with a range of offenses. Additionally, they manage the preliminary stages in felony cases, demonstrating the significance of their role in maintaining law and order at the local level. The responsibilities of local prosecutors are intricately tied to the unique needs and dynamics of the communities they serve, contributing to the effective functioning of the justice system in their jurisdiction.

Figure 8.20

8.3.2.1 Prosecutor Functions

Prosecutors bear multifaceted responsibilities within the criminal justice system, wielding significant influence over various stages of legal proceedings. Primarily, their central role is to enforce criminal laws and secure convictions of individuals who are guilty of illegal offenses. However, they are also charged with the crucial task of safeguarding defendants from wrongful convictions and ensuring they receive adequate defense counsel (Criminal Justice Standards Committee, 2017). Prosecutors act as powerful decision-makers, exercising discretionary power to bring charges against individuals, determine plea negotiations, and decide the number and nature of charges. This discretionary authority emphasizes the prosecutor’s pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of a case.

Beyond courtroom proceedings, prosecutors invest considerable time in reviewing evidence and conducting legal research to inform their charging decisions. They serve as advocates for victims, whether individuals or the state, and dedicate substantial effort to trial preparation, plea negotiations, and handling appeals. Additionally, prosecutors provide legal advice to government agencies, contributing to the broader legal framework within their jurisdiction. In essence, the prosecutor’s responsibilities encompass a balance between pursuing justice, protecting the rights of defendants, advocating for victims, and contributing to the overall functioning of the legal system.

8.3.2.2 Prosecutorial Discretion

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the broad authority and decision-making power vested in prosecutors throughout various stages of the criminal justice process. This discretionary power allows prosecutors to make critical choices, influencing the outcome of cases and shaping the overall administration of justice. During the latter part of the 20th century, the discretionary power of prosecutors was expanded by “tough on crime” policies and the transition to determinate sentencing (Husak, 2008; McCoy, 2005).

One significant aspect of prosecutorial discretion lies in the decision to file formal charges. Prosecutors must assess the evidence, legal considerations, and the public interest before determining whether to pursue a case through the criminal justice system. Importantly, prosecutors can also exercise their discretion to abandon or terminate a case through actions like filing a formal notice of nolle prosequi .

Another crucial area where prosecutorial discretion comes into play is during the plea negotiation process. Prosecutors have the authority to offer plea deals, allowing defendants to plead guilty in exchange for lesser charges or a more lenient sentence. While judges retain the right to reject such agreements, the prosecutor’s role in shaping plea offers gives them significant influence over case outcomes.

Factors influencing prosecutorial discretion are diverse and can include legal considerations, such as the defendant’s criminal history, the severity of the alleged crime, strength of evidence, and the defendant’s willingness to cooperate. However, some research suggests that extralegal factors, including the prosecutor’s workload, the defendant’s demographic characteristics (such as gender and race ), and the perceived likelihood of conviction, also play a role in the negotiation process (Bushway et al., 2014). This discretion, while essential for effective and flexible legal administration, requires careful consideration and accountability to ensure fair and just outcomes within the criminal justice system.

8.3.3 Defense Attorneys

The defense attorney is a central figure in the legal system, playing a crucial role in upholding the principles of justice within the adversarial system . Acting as a dedicated advocate for the accused, the defense attorney is responsible for safeguarding the rights of their client throughout the legal process. One of the fundamental rights afforded to defendants is the right to an attorney. If an individual cannot afford legal representation, they are recognized as an indigent defendant and are entitled to have an attorney provided for them. Defense attorneys are instrumental in ensuring that the accused receives a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are upheld.

The role of the defense attorney encompasses various essential functions, including conducting a thorough examination of the evidence, challenging the prosecution’s case, and presenting a robust defense strategy during court proceedings. Furthermore, defense attorneys play a crucial role in protecting individuals from wrongful convictions and countering the potentially disproportionate power of the prosecution. They bring legal expertise to the table, helping their clients navigate the complexities of the legal system, challenge evidence, cross-examine witnesses during trial, and negotiate plea deals when necessary.

In addition to their courtroom responsibilities, defense attorneys often provide legal advice to their clients, explaining the charges they face, outlining potential legal strategies, and guiding them through the complexities of the legal process. Their role extends beyond the confines of the courtroom, encompassing a commitment to ensuring justice and fairness for those they represent. Overall, defense attorneys serve as vital guardians of individual rights and contribute significantly to the integrity of the criminal justice system.

8.3.3.1 Defense Attorney Functions

Defense attorneys serve essential functions in the legal system, working to safeguard the rights and interests of their clients throughout different stages of the criminal justice process. Their roles encompass various crucial functions, including advocating for clients during hearings, arraignments, and trials. Defense attorneys are responsible for informing the defendant of their rights and ensuring the upholding of these rights. They conduct thorough investigations into the alleged crimes, aiming to provide the strongest possible defense. Additionally, defense attorneys actively participate in plea negotiations, offering strategic guidance to their clients. Overall, defense attorneys serve as legal advocates, protectors of constitutional rights, and strategic advisors, contributing significantly to the pursuit of fairness and justice in criminal proceedings.

8.3.3.2 Private Attorney

Private attorneys play a pivotal role in the legal landscape, offering individuals accused of crimes the option to secure legal representation beyond the public defense system. Approximately 20% of defendants choose to retain private attorneys (Cohen, 2014). Opting for a private attorney comes with distinct advantages. First and foremost, private attorneys typically possess greater financial resources, allowing for more comprehensive investigations and the development of stronger legal strategies (Neubauer & Fradella, 2018). Additionally, private attorneys can devote more time to individual cases, providing a more personalized and focused approach. Their autonomy allows for a heightened level of aggression in the courtroom, unrestricted by routine interactions with prosecutors and judges, as often encountered by public defense attorneys (Cohen, 2014). This increased aggression can be particularly beneficial in securing favorable trial outcomes (Fortino, 2021).

However, private attorneys also face certain challenges. Many private attorneys practice various types of law, potentially lacking the specialized expertise in criminal law that public defenders may possess. Despite potential courtroom advantages, the absence of established relationships with prosecutors and judges may complicate plea negotiations for private attorneys (Spohn, 2015). Moreover, research by Cohen (2014) suggests that while privately retained attorneys may excel in keeping clients out of jail, individuals represented by private attorneys often receive longer sentences than those represented by public defense attorneys. Private attorneys, thus, offer a distinct avenue for legal representation, balancing advantages and challenges within the criminal justice system.

8.3.3.3 Indigent Defendants

Indigent defendants are individuals who lack the financial means to afford legal representation. The term “indigent” is commonly used to describe those who are impoverished and unable to pay for the services of a defense attorney. Recognizing the constitutional right to legal counsel, the U.S. Supreme Court, through decisions such as Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) mandated that indigent defendants charged with a felony are entitled to the provision of a defense attorney, even if they cannot afford one. Later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) expanded the rights of the accused to include the right to an attorney for any situation where the accused faces incarceration. This legal safeguard ensures that individuals facing criminal charges, irrespective of their financial status, have access to legal representation to protect their rights and ensure a fair trial. The commitment to providing legal assistance for indigent defendants is a cornerstone of the justice system’s efforts to uphold constitutional principles and promote fairness in criminal proceedings.

8.3.3.4 Public Defense Systems

After the 1970s, states underwent significant transformations in their criminal defense systems to ensure legal representation for all individuals facing incarceration. There are three primary systems employed by states to provide attorneys for the criminally accused: 1) the public defenders system , 2) the assigned counsel system , and 3) the contract system . While some states exclusively adopt a single system, others, like Washington, employ a hybrid approach by utilizing a combination of multiple systems.

The public defenders system operates as a government-run office employing full-time salaried attorneys, predominantly implemented in larger cities and high-caseload areas due to their relatively higher cost. In the assigned counsel system , the court appoints private attorneys on a case-by-case basis to represent indigent defendants . Selected from a list of qualified lawyers, these private attorneys receive compensation for each individual case from the city, county, or state, making the assigned counsel system a more cost-effective solution. This system is particularly suitable for rural areas or regions with lower caseloads. The contract system involves the city, county, or state entering into a contract with a private law firm or individual attorneys to provide legal counsel for indigent clients. The number of contracts may vary based on jurisdictional needs, and attorneys under these systems receive a predetermined fee for representing indigent defendants. Notably, attorneys in the public defense system usually exclusively practice criminal defense, while those in the assigned or contract systems often handle other areas of law alongside their defense work.

8.3.4 Jurors

Jury members stand as indispensable pillars within the American legal system, embodying the democratic ideal of citizen participation in the administration of justice. Functioning as impartial adjudicators, jurors are selected from the local community and hold the critical responsibility of determining the guilt or innocence of individuals accused of criminal charges, as well as assessing liability in civil cases. The right to a jury trial is not only enshrined in Article III (U.S. Const. art. III) but is reiterated in the Sixth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. VI), emphasizing its foundational significance. This essential guarantee ensures that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime occurred. Thomas Jefferson (1789), a prominent figure during the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, eloquently expressed the pivotal role of trial by jury, deeming it “the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution” (para. 12). These constitutional provisions and sentiments underscore the fundamental role that trial by jury plays in safeguarding individual rights and upholding the principles of justice. Beyond their function as factfinders, jurors serve as a vital bulwark against potential governmental abuse of power, aligning with the visionary ideals of the Founding Fathers. The jury system reflects a steadfast commitment to justice, rooted in the collective wisdom and diversity of the community, ensuring that legal decisions resonate with the perspectives of ordinary citizens rather than being solely within the purview of legal professionals.

8.3.4.1 Jury Selection

Jury selection is a crucial element of the court system, constituting a meticulously designed process to construct an impartial and unbiased jury, thereby safeguarding the integrity of a fair trial. Unfolding in several stages, this intricate procedure involves the careful screening of potential jurors, ultimately leading to the formation of the final jury for the trial. Commencing with the creation of a jury pool and progressing through the venire , the process culminates in the establishment of the jury panel . Subsequently, the voir dire process unfolds, during which judges and attorneys pose questions to potential jurors, assessing their suitability for the trial. This discerning examination aids in determining the final selected jurors who constitute the official jury for the trial. This jury is entrusted with the responsibility of rendering a verdict based on presented evidence and legal arguments, ensuring the just adjudication of the case.

8.3.4.1.1 Jury Pool

The commencement of the jury selection process involves the random selection of potential jurors from the court’s jurisdiction , forming what is commonly known as the jury pool . To be eligible for jury duty, individuals must meet specific criteria outlined by the state. Common stipulations include being a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years of age, residing within the jurisdiction of the court, and not presently serving a criminal sentence. To streamline this selection, many states rely on voter registration and driver’s license information to create an inclusive and representative pool of potential jurors.

As mandated by the Sixth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. VI), the formation of an impartial jury necessitates a random selection of qualified citizens from within the jurisdiction. This requirement ensures that no specific group, whether defined by race , economic status, religion, or gender, is systematically or intentionally excluded from the jury pool . It’s essential to highlight that, as underscored in the Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. (1946), the standard for impartiality does not require the representation of every conceivable economic, social, religious, racial, political, and geographical group within the community on a jury. Practical limitation may render achieving comprehensive representation unattainable. Moreover, even if the venire processes were to, by chance, yield the random selection of an all-male jury, it would still be deemed an impartial jury of one’s peers within the legal framework.

Figure 8.22

The Jury

While a randomly selected jury pool may not precisely reflect the complete population demographic spectrum within the specified jurisdiction, structural and systemic factors such as racism , sexism, and classism can introduce potential imbalances in the diversity and representation of the jury pool. For example, individuals who are not registered voters or do not possess a driver’s license may be excluded from the selection process in certain states. Additionally, those whose employers do not provide compensation for work absences resulting from jury duty may be more inclined to seek exemption or request to be excused from this civic responsibility. These considerations underscore the nuanced challenges that may impact the inclusivity of the jury pool and, consequently, the fairness of the legal process.

8.3.4.1.2 Voir Dire

Individuals randomly selected from the jury pool are summoned to court to constitute the venire . Upon their arrival at the courthouse, members of the venire undergo an additional random selection process to determine those who will report to a designated courtroom, collectively forming the jury panel . Once the jury panel enters the courtroom, the voir dire process commences. Originating from French, “voir dire” translates to “to speak the truth,” this process is essential for ensuring a fair and impartial trial by identifying and addressing any potential biases among jurors through a series of questioning and dismissal of potential jurors.

At the beginning of voir dire, the judge typically asks general questions to the entire jury panel. These questions may address basic information, such as the jurors’ backgrounds, occupations, and experiences. Following this, the judge reads the names of individuals expected to testify at the trial. Jurors who are acquainted with any of these individuals are typically dismissed from the jury panel. The judge then discusses the nature of the case and inquiries about potential hardships or conflicts that could affect a member of the jury panel’s ability to fairly serve with impartiality. Members of the jury panel who are unable to fairly consider the evidence of the case with impartiality are also dismissed.

Following the initial voir dire questions posed by the judge, both the prosecution and defense teams are given opportunity to ask more case-specific inquiries, aiming to discern the jurors’ perspectives on the law. This comprehensive examination affords attorneys the option to exercise challenges, either for cause or peremptory, ensuring the formation of a fair and unbiased jury. This meticulous process allows both parties to actively participate in selecting a jury more likely to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence presented during the trial. Attorneys utilize the information gathered in the voir dire process to make informed decisions about which jurors they prefer in the final jury. The selected jurors then become the official jury and alternate jurors for the trial, although the exact number of jurors varies depending on the type of case. These final selected jurors bear the responsibility of rendering a verdict based on the presented evidence and legal arguments presented during the trial.

8.3.4.1.2.1 Attorney Voir Dire Challenges

During attorney questioning, should a juror exhibit significant bias or possess a direct connection to the case that might impede their ability for impartial service, either the defense or prosecuting attorney can challenge “for cause,” requesting that the individual be excused from the jury panel. While both attorneys have unlimited challenges for cause, each challenge necessitates approval from the judge. This meticulous process ensures the selection of an impartial and fair-minded jury for the forthcoming legal proceedings.

In addition to “for cause” challenges, both prosecuting and defense attorneys are allotted a specific number of peremptory challenges , empowering the attorneys to dismiss a juror without having to provide a specific cause. The exact quantity of peremptory challenges granted to each attorney varies across jurisdiction or state. For instance, during a voir dire process for an animal cruelty case, a defense attorney might utilize a peremptory challenge to excuse a juror wearing a sweater with pleasant imagery of a dog, cat, or other animal.

The utilization of peremptory challenges is not without controversy. While the U.S. Supreme Court, in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879), declared state statutes denying citizens the equal right to be jurors based on race as unconstitutional; the rulings, however, did not prohibit attorneys from using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race. For nearly a century, the courts largely accepted racial discrimination facilitated through peremptory challenges. It was not until 1986, in the landmark case Batson v. Kentucky (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor’s systematic removal of all Black jurors using peremptory challenges, solely based on race, violated the Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined a three-step process to determine whether a peremptory challenge was racially motivated: 1) establishing a prima facie case revealing discrimination; 2) once the initial criterion is met, shift the burden to the challenging party “to provide a race neutral explanation” (Gabbidon et al., 2008, p. 60); and 3) proceeding the explanation, the responsibility rests with the courts to make the final determination.

8.3.4.2 Discrimination against Women

Historically, women encountered exclusion from jury duty due to systemic discrimination . The prevalence of sexism is starkly illustrated by a pivotal moment in 1961 when the all-male U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Florida statute mandating women to register with the circuit court clerk in order to be added to a jury list, in contrast to men who were automatically included. The court infamously justified their discriminatory ruling by stating:

Despite the enlightened emancipation of women from the restrictions and protections of bygone years, and their entry into many parts of community life formerly considered to be reserved for men, woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life. (Hoyt v. Florida, 1961, pp. 61-62)

Unfortunately, this discriminatory reasoning perpetuated the notion that women were not equal to men and were not well-suited for civic duties. However, a significant turning point occurred in 1975 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Taylor v. Louisiana (1975), deemed it unconstitutional to systematically prevent women from participating in jury duty. In lieu of this progress, nevertheless, peremptory challenges could still be used to remove jurors solely based on their sex. Over a decade later, a landmark decision was reached in the early 1990s when a state employed nine of its ten peremptory challenges to exclude potential male jurors in a child support trial. It was only when men became the targets of sexual discrimination that the court finally acknowledged and addressed the long-standing sexist discriminatory practices existent in jury selection practices. This pivotal moment led the U.S. Supreme Court to declare, in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994), that the removal of potential jurors based on gender and/or race was unconstitutional. This marked a crucial step towards ensuring equality in jury selection.

Figure 8.23

8.4 Trial Process

Figure 8.25

If no plea-bargaining agreement is reached, and the defendant is deemed mentally and physically capable of standing trial, a trial date will be scheduled. Prior to the trial, the process of voir dire takes place, accompanied by pre-trial motions and hearings, during which attorneys have the opportunity to file additional motions or request hearings on specific issues. These may pertain to evidentiary matters, legal arguments, or requests to exclude certain evidence. Simultaneously, the court may issue pre-trial orders, delineating rules that govern how the trial will unfold. To expedite proceedings, parties may also stipulate certain facts or issues, streamlining the trial process. It is not uncommon for courts to encourage a final attempt at settlement, striving for resolution without resorting to a trial. These proceedings aim to deliver a fair and just resolution based on the merits of the case. The culmination of these pre-trial stages is the trial, where both legal parties present their cases, witnesses provide testimony, evidence is introduced, and legal arguments are presented before the judge or jury.

8.4.1 Trial

A trial is a formal legal proceeding designed to resolve disputes and determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant accused of a crime. It unfolds through a structured process encompassing distinct phases. The trial commences with the prosecutor delivering their opening statement , outlining the case, charges, and their theory, detailing the elements they intend to prove the defendant’s guilt. Once the prosecutor concludes their opening statement, the defense may choose to immediately initiate their own opening statement or defer it to a later point following the prosecutor’s presentation. This strategic decision by the defense allows for a calculated response to the prosecution’s narrative.

Once the defense assumes the floor, they articulate the case from the defendant’s perspective, providing a succinct overview of the evidence, witnesses, and expert testimonies they intend to present throughout the duration of the trial. During their presentation, the defense constructs a compelling argument, outlining the reasons why the prosecutor’s case is insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Typically, this involves a comprehensive examination of the evidence at hand, the credibility of witnesses, and potential expert insights that bolster the defense’s narrative. By strategically challenging the prosecution’s case, the defense endeavors to establish doubt in the minds of the jury, emphasizing the critical threshold of reasonable doubt that must be surpassed for a conviction.

Following the opening statements, the prosecutor initiates the case in chief , a pivotal phase where the prosecution presents its primary evidence, generally inclusive of witness testimonies, documents, DNA, and other exhibits. This stage is of utmost importance as it serves as the prosecution’s opportunity to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. During direct examination , the prosecution queries its witnesses to elicit pertinent information. Subsequently, the defense engages in cross-examination , posing additional questions to the prosecution’s witnesses. If the defense raises new issues during cross-examination, the prosecution may counter them with rebuttal evidence. Upon concluding their case, the prosecution rests, marking the conclusion of their primary evidence.

Once the prosecution concludes its case, the defense is afforded the opportunity to present its own case, aiming to challenge the prosecutor’s evidence or introduce its own in an effort to counter the allegations. This may involve calling their own witnesses to the stand, where the defense proceeds with direct examination to elicit critical information, followed by cross-examination by the prosecution. In the instance that crucial information comes to light during cross-examination, the defense retains the option for rebuttal. This dynamic exchange of evidence and examination serves as a crucial element in the trial, influencing the trajectory of the case.

The subsequent phase involves the closing arguments where both the defense and prosecution succinctly summarize their cases for the jury. As the prosecution bears the burden of proof, it typically delivers the final closing argument, with the defense presenting its argument first. Following the conclusion of the closing arguments, the judge provides the jury with instructions on how to interpret and apply the relevant laws before adjourning to the deliberation room to engage in discussions aimed at reaching a unanimous verdict. Deliberations persist, requiring all jurors to vote either guilty or not guilty, until a conclusive decision is reached (Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020). If a defendant is found guilty, they will be scheduled for sentencing to determine the appropriate punishment. Failure to achieve unanimity results in a mistrial. In the event of a mistrial, the prosecutor may opt to drop the case, or the defendant might face retrial with a new jury, adhering to the prohibition against double jeopardy . A notable example is when actor Danny Masterson’s initial trial for three counts of forcible rape ended in a mistrial due to a jury deadlock in 2022. Subsequently, he was retried for the same crime the following year (People of the State of California v. Daniel Peter Masterson, 2023) and found guilty of two counts of forcible rape (Associated Press, 2023).

 

8.4.2 Verdict and Appeals

The verdict and appeals process serve as integral components of the legal system, with the former marking the conclusion of a trial and the latter providing a crucial mechanism for scrutinizing and potentially rectifying a wrongful guilty determination. Specifically, a verdict represents the formal decision rendered by a court at the culmination of legal proceedings or a trial, reflecting the court’s determination regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused, drawing upon presented evidence, witness testimonies, and legal arguments.

Following a trial, in the event of a not guilty verdict, a defendant held in custody is promptly released, and their freedoms are reinstated. Furthermore, if an individual found not guilty had been released on bail , the bail amount will be refunded. Conversely, if a defendant is found guilty, whether by a judge in a bench trial or by a jury in a jury trial, they retain the right to appeal the verdict or proceed to a sentencing hearing. Opting for an appeal entails a formal review of the legal processes leading to their conviction.

The constitutional principle of double jeopardy prohibits the prosecutor from appealing a not guilty verdict, safeguarding against multiple prosecutions for the same offense. However, it’s noteworthy that either the defendant or the prosecutor can request an interlocutory appeal , specifically targeting pretrial rulings such as the judge’s decision to suppress evidence.

In cases where a defendant enters a guilty plea or a no-contest plea, their ability to appeal the conviction is limited, but they may still appeal the imposed sentence. It’s essential to adhere to specific timelines for filing appeals, with most jurisdictions mandating that the defendant submits their appeal within a defined period after the conviction or sentencing. For instance, Washington State requires notice appeals to be filed within thirty days of the court ruling (Wash. RAP 5.2(a)).

The party initiating an appeal assumes the role of the appellant or petitioner, while the opposing party becomes the appellee or respondent. Typically, the appellant initiates their appeal by presenting arguments centered around procedural errors or wrongful convictions. A judicial panel in the court of appeals thoroughly reviews the case and delivers a verdict either affirming the lower court’s decision, overturning the decision, or remanding the case for a retrial. This process underscores the legal system’s dedication to ensuring fair trials, rectifying potential errors, and upholding the principles of justice.

Figure 8.26

8.5 Sentencing

Upon the conclusion of a trial with a guilty verdict, where the guilty party does not choose to appeal or the appeal reaffirms the guilty verdict, the subsequent phase in the criminal justice process is the sentencing stage. During a sentencing hearing, the judge presiding over the case determines the appropriate punishment for the convicted individual. The hearing provides an opportunity for both the prosecution and defense to present arguments, legal precedents, evidence, and any additional relevant information pertinent to the sentencing decision. The goal of the sentencing hearing is to balance the interests of justice, public safety, and rehabilitation, tailoring the punishment to fit the specific circumstances of the case and the individual offender. The judge’s decision at the sentencing hearing significantly influences the consequences the convicted individual will face, ranging from fines and probation to imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offense.

8.5.1 Pre-Sentencing

In certain jurisdictions, community corrections officers will compile a pre-sentencing report , also known as pre-sentence investigation report (PSI), prior to the sentencing hearing to aid judges in determining appropriate sentencing for a convicted individual. PSIs comprise a comprehensive overview of the convicted individual’s background, personal history, and social context. They encompass information about the defendant’s criminal history, education, employment, family background, and any pertinent health issues. Victim impact statements may also be integrated into PSI materials, addressing the consequences of the crime and its effects on the victims and their families. Typically, financial information and the probation or community corrections officer’s recommendation for an appropriate sentence are included in the report. By providing comprehensive insight into the offender’s circumstances, PSIs assist judges in crafting sentences that take into account the specific details of each case, thereby promoting a more equitable and just legal outcome.

During the sentencing hearing, the judge may consider various factors such as age, criminal record, current convictions, and the use of weapons, as well as information provided in the pre-sentencing report including the victim impact statements and recommendations from probation or community corrections officers to shape a well-informed sentencing decision. Other factors such as the nature and severity of the crime, the charges and the evidence presented during trial, along with any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, are also taken into account. Aggravating circumstances are factors such as a lack of remorse or engaging in grotesque or violent behavior that could incline the judge toward a more punitive stance. In contrast, mitigating circumstances are elements that may lead the judge to reduce the sentence. Examples of mitigating circumstances include cases involving first-time offenders, instances where the defendant expresses genuine remorse, or situations where social or family factors may have substantially influenced the defendant’s involvement in criminal activity.

8.5.2 Indeterminate vs Determinate Sentencing

In the early and mid-19th century, both states and the federal government predominantly utilized indeterminate sentencing within the legal system. In this sentencing model, the duration of a convicted individual’s prison term is not rigidly fixed but instead falls within a wide range established by law. Contrary to a predetermined and inflexible sentencing structure, this methodology provides judges with a degree of discretion in determining the actual duration of imprisonment, allowing for flexibility to consider various factors such as the offender’s behavior, level of remorse, and efforts toward rehabilitation. Ideally, this discretionary power enables the tailoring of punishments to suit the unique circumstances of each case, fostering a more equitable and nuanced approach to sentencing.

In states utilizing indeterminate sentencing , legislators establish broad sentencing structures with substantial gaps between the minimum and maximum sentences for a specific conviction. This framework grants judges with considerable discretion in determining the length of imprisonment for a convicted individual. Once sentenced and incarcerated, the inmate engages in periodic meetings with a parole board , which evaluates their progress and decides whether they should be released before serving the maximum sentence. If the parole board deems further incarceration necessary, the inmate remains incarcerated until their next parole hearing. Conversely, if the parole board perceives that the inmate has been rehabilitated, the inmate is released, completing the remaining sentence in the community under parole supervision.

The indeterminate sentencing model affords judges and parole boards with an extensive degree of discretion in determining both the nature and duration of punishment for a given offender (Gertner, 2010). Although intended to tailor sentences to individual circumstances, this discretionary authority unintentionally resulted in sentencing inconsistency, obscuring rehabilitation efforts and jeopardizing the pursuit of justice.

Despite the initial goal of promoting rehabilitation and successful reintegration into society based on demonstrated improvement and compliance with rehabilitation efforts, the indeterminate sentencing model fell short of intended objectives. This shortfall is attributed to the improper implementation of rehabilitation practices and inadequate policies. Unfortunately, indeterminate sentencing evolved into one of the most discriminatory and misused tools within the criminal justice system (Pisciotta, 1994).

Against the backdrop of rising crime rates, issues of discrimination, and the “tough on crime” political agenda of the 1980s, a broad-based consensus emerged on the need for sentencing reform. Advocates from various political perspectives rallied for reform during this period, encouraging the adoption of determinate sentencing , which involves a fixed sentence for a specific criminal offense, to replace indeterminate sentencing (Spohn, 2014).

Liberal reform proponents, exemplified by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that indeterminate sentencing was inherently inconsistent and excessively punitive, leading to widespread discrimination against minorities and the economically disadvantaged. To address these concerns, these advocates called for constraints on parole board and judicial discretions (Tonry, 1995).

Simultaneously, conservative advocates for reform argued that indeterminate sentencing policies failed to adequately punish criminals for serious offenses. They maintained that judges often displayed excessive leniency, often characterized as being too “soft oncrime.” Consequently, they asserted the imperative to adopt determinate sentencing policies to guarantee more stringent punishments. This conservative viewpoint posited that implementing determinate sentencing would result in a more effective reduction in crime rates (Wilson, 2013). The convergence of these varied concerns and perspectives emphasized the pressing urgency and complex nature of the sentencing reform discourse during that pivotal period.

In 1980, Minnesota led the way in pioneering sentencing reform efforts through the implementation of statewide sentencing guidelines, and by 2019, the federal government, the District of Columbia, and 19 states had also embraced similar reforms, adopting various forms of sentencing guidelines (Frase, 2019). These guidelines, depicted in Figure 8.27, set forth a narrow range of minimum and maximum sentences, offering a more controlled and consistent framework for making sentencing decisions.

Figure 8.27

Sentencing Guidelines: A Standard Range Example

The widespread adoption of determinate sentencing policies marks a significant paradigm shift towards a more structured and uniform approach to criminal punishment. In jurisdictions that implement determinate sentencing , judges operate within a more structured framework, obligated to strict adherence to predetermined sentences. These sentences are established through statutes or sentencing guidelines intended to ensure consistency in punishment among similar offenses.

This structured and standardized approach offers a systematic method for sentencing, enhancing clarity and predictability within the criminal justice system. While determinate sentencing aims to promote more equitable outcomes and reduce the potential for abuse by limiting the discretion of judges and parole board , it does not entirely eliminate discretion. Instead, the authority to set specific sentence lengths was transferred to prosecutors and legislators who define sentencing guidelines, statutory minimums and maximums.

Despite significant strides in sentencing practices, concerns about determinate sentencing persist. Criticisms centered around the potential for sentencing disparities resulting from the degree of legislative decisions and prosecutorial discretion within this framework. Further critiques arise from arguments about the inflexible structure of determinate sentencing, where the rigidity of the model fails to adequately consider the unique circumstances of each case. Additionally, this legal approach faces criticism for potentially contributing to overreliance on incarceration without addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and other crucial mitigating circumstances .

8.5.3 Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentencing

It is common for individuals to violate multiple laws while committing a crime. When this happens, individuals may face separate charges for each distinct offense, leading to multiple criminal charges (Husak, 2008). When facing charges for multiple crimes, the criminal justice system employs two primary methods of sentencing: consecutive sentencing and concurrent sentencing . These two approaches are often used by the courts to mitigate or exacerbate the punishment of a defendant, and are frequently taken into account during the plea negotiation process.

Consecutive sentencing involves an individual serving the sentences for each offense consecutively, one after the other. This results in a longer overall period of incarceration, as each sentence is served separately. Consecutive sentencing is typically employed when the nature of the crimes or the severity of the offenses warrants a more extended period of punishment. While concurrent sentencing is viewed as more lenient, consecutive sentencing is often considered a more punitive approach, reflecting the seriousness of multiple offenses.

Conversely, concurrent sentencing occurs when an individual convicted of multiple crimes serves the sentences for each offense simultaneously. In this scenario, the sentences overlap, and the individual spends a single period of incarceration that encompasses all the convictions, streamlining the incarceration period for multiple offenses. The recommendation of concurrent sentences by the prosecutor is often employed as a tactic to entice the defendant into accepting a plea negotiation . Concurrent sentences are used rather than simply dropping charges to ensure the individual receives a punishment even if one of the charges is overturned during the appeals process.

Judges wield significant discretion when determining whether sentences for multiple offenses should be served concurrently or consecutively. Judicial discretion , jurisdiction, and the prevailing legal framework constitute pivotal factors that weigh in on this decision-making process. The severity and nature of the offenses, the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and considerations of justice and public safety further contribute to the complexity of the judge’s choice. These multifaceted elements collectively shape the decision-making dynamics within the criminal justice system, influencing the chosen approach for managing sentences related to distinct offenses. Judicial discretion is paramount in this process, allowing for a nuanced and case-specific approach that empowers judges to tailor sentences to the unique circumstances of each case and the specific needs of the offender.

The decision between concurrent sentencing and consecutive sentencing carries substantial implications for the total length of the offender’s incarceration, underscoring the importance of judicial discretion in the sentencing process. Consider the hypothetical case of Johnny B. Goode, who faces charges for three offenses: drug possession with the intent to distribute (4-year sentence), robbery (7-year sentence), and aggravated assault (3-year sentence). If Johnny B. Goode is sentenced to concurrent sentencing terms, he would serve all sentences simultaneously, resulting in a total prison term of 7 years—the length of the longest sentence among the three. Conversely, if Johnny B. Goode receives consecutive sentences , each sentence would be served in succession, leading to a cumulative prison duration of 14 years—twice the length of the sentencing terms under concurrent sentencing.

8.5.4 “Tough On Crime” Sentencing

The notion that severe punishments, particularly lengthy prison sentences, act as a deterrent to criminal behavior and contribute to crime reduction laid the foundation for the “tough on crime” approach. This stance, often intertwined with political rhetoric showcasing a commitment to public safety, gained prominence during the 1980s and 1990s. This rise in support for this approach was fueled by escalating crime rates, popular punitivism , reduced funding for mental health institutions, and the shift of drug addiction from a public health issue to a criminal matter (Chambliss, 2000).

The “tough on crime” philosophy embraces a punitive strategy characterized by stringent penalties for criminal offenses, employing draconian sentencing practices like truth-in-sentencing , mandatory minimum sentencing , and three-strikes laws . This approach underscores the significance of incarceration, advocates for severe penalties in drug-related cases, and limits parole and early release options for offenders. The overarching nature of this approach reflects a comprehensive commitment to deterrence through punitive measures.

8.5.5.1 Truth-in-Sentencing

Truth-in-sentencing policies were among several sentencing changes championed by the “tough on crime” movement in the 1980s and 1990s. Truth-in-sentencing is a legislative policy mandating that offenders serve a substantial portion of their sentences before becoming eligible for parole , thereby curtailing opportunities for early release or reductions based on good behavior.

In 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, allocating a $10 billion budget for state prison construction to incentivize states to adopt truth-in-sentencing laws. By the twenty-first century, 42 states had implemented these incentivizing measures (Tonry, 2013).

Prior to these legislative changes, states like Wisconsin permitted offenders to become eligible for parole after serving only 25% of their sentence, and many were mandated to be paroled after serving just two-thirds of their sentence (Hammer, 2002). However, following the adoption of truth-in-sentencing policies, Wisconsin introduced new mandates requiring the majority of inmates to serve their full sentences. Even among the small number of offenders who were eligible to apply for early release after completing 75% of their sentence were seldom granted approval of their requests for early release (Adelman, 2013).

8.5.4.2 Mandatory Minimum (Mandatory Sentencing Laws)

A consequential outcome of the “tough on crime” agenda at the close of the twentieth century was the implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing . Also known as mandatory sentences, this legal concept dictates a minimum period of incarceration for specific criminal offenses. Offenses subject to mandatory minimum sentencing have predetermined, non-negotiable minimum sentences established by legislation, often at the state or federal level, which include severe penalties for certain crimes. Judges and prosecutors are obligated to impose, at the very least, the specified minimum term of imprisonment upon conviction, significantly limiting judicial discretion and the flexibility to consider mitigating circumstances , intent, or other unique circumstances when determining the sentence.

While the adoption of mandatory minimum laws found general acceptance across the political spectrum, disagreements arose concerning the specific criminal offenses that should warrant mandatory sentencing. For instance, conservatives predominantly favored the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug-related offenses, whereas liberals leaned toward employing mandatory minimum sentencing primarily for gun violations (Husack, 2008). Despite these disparities in preference, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government had enacted at least one mandatory minimum sentencing law by the mid-1990s (Tonry, 1998).

While this approach ensures sentencing consistency, it has sparked considerable debate. Advocates contend that imposing harsh and predictable consequences for specific offenses serves as an effective deterrent of crime. However, opponents argue that it undermines fairness and individualized justice by limiting judges’ ability to tailor sentences to the unique circumstances of each case. This limitation in judicial discretion can result in sentences that do not align with the severity of the crime and can contribute to sentencing disparities, particularly in the form of disproportionately severe penalties for non-violent offenses. Problematically, the implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing has led to a significant increase in prison populations, resulting in overcrowded correctional facilities and raising concerns about inhumane conditions (Husack, 2008).

8.5.4.3 Three-Strikes Laws

Three-strikes laws are habitual offender laws that impose harsher sentences on individuals previously convicted of serious or violent felonies. Similar to mandatory minimum and truth-in-sentencing laws , three-strike laws gained popularity during the 1990s. Between 1993 and 1995, a total of 24 states and the federal government implemented forms of three-strikes laws, although Texas had enhancement sentencing laws dating back to the 1970s (Karch & Cravens, 2014). In many instances, three-strikes laws automatically initiate a life sentence upon an offender’s third felony conviction, or “third strike.” In several states, such as California, even minor felonies can contribute to second and third felony “strikes” that lead to a life imprisonment sentence.

Initially, three-strikes laws were grounded in the literature regarding career criminals and the concept of select incapacitation . Research during the 1970s and 1980s revealed that approximately 18-22% of all offenders were responsible for nearly 50-55% of all crime (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1984; Wolfgang et al., 1972; Wright & Rossi, 1985). These findings underpinned the notion that a vast majority of crime could be eliminated by effectively incapacitating habitual offenders with life imprisonment sentences, prompting the selective incapacitation movement. While this concept appears effective and beneficial to society in theory, these sentencing practices were exceedingly problematic and lead to an exponential increase in prison populations. By 2004, the total prison population in California exceeded 160,000, with second and third strike offenders accounting for only 43,000 inmates (Brown & Jolivette, 2005). By 2010, this sentencing pattern fueled by the three-strikes laws led to incarceration rates in California’s prisons to be 180-200% over capacity (Mullen et al., 2019).

By the early 2000s, it became apparent that three-strikes laws were inefficient and overly punitive . Numerous cases garnered media spotlight, creating public awareness of the draconian measures. For instance, in Ewing v. California (2003), Ewing received a 25-year to life sentence for stealing three golf clubs with a total value of less than $1200 (Kieso, 2005). As prisoner populations surged to unprecedented levels, the cost of incarceration became unsustainable, particularly during the 2009 Great Recession . Even prosecutors, who typically adopt a “tough on crime” approach, took measures to circumvent mandatory minimum and three-strike laws by charging defendants with lesser crimes than those for which they were arrested (Bjerk, 2005).

Although the “tough on crime” perspective asserts that these punitive measures will enhance public safety and deter criminal activity, little research has been found to support these claims. By contrast, this approach has faced much criticism due to its lack of focus on offender rehabilitation and successful reintegration into society, negative disproportionate impact on marginalized communities that contribute to problematic racial and socioeconomic disparities, and contribution to prison overcrowding, which strains correctional systems and resources and significantly raises operation costs. In recent years, there has been growing public recognition for sentencing reform, with efforts focused on the reevaluation and modification of “tough on crime” policies to be replaced with more balanced and effective approaches for addressing criminal behavior and sentencing practices.

Figure 8.28

 

References

Adelman, L. (2013). The adverse impact of truth in sentencing on Wisconsin’s efforts to deal with low level drug offenders. Valparaiso University Law Review, 47(3), 689-707. https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol47/iss3/1/

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (n.d.). About the Supreme Court. United States Courts. Retrieved April 27, 2024, from https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (2021). Federal judicial caseload statistics 2021. United States Courts. Retrieved April 27, 2024, from https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-judicial-caseload-statistics-2021

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (2023, June 30). Federal court management statistics, June 2023. United States Courts. Retrieved April 27, 2024, from https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-court-management-statistics-june-2023

Associated Press. (2023, May 31). Actor Danny Masterson is found guilty of 2 out of 3 counts of rape in retrial. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/31/1179285514/danny-masterson-rape-retrial

Babcock, B. A. (1983). Defending the guilty. Cleveland State Law Review, 32(2), 175-187. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2052&context=clevstlrev

Bibas, S. (2006). Transparency and participation in criminal procedure. New York University Law Review, 81(3), 911-966. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/81

Bjerk, D. (2005). Making the crime fit the penalty: The role of prosecutorial discretion under mandatory minimum sentencing. The Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), 591-625. https://doi.org/10.1086/429980

Black, K. A., & McCloskey, K. A. (2013). Predicting date rape perceptions: The effects of gender, gender role attitudes, and victim resistance. Violence Against Women, 19(8), 949-967. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213499244

Bourne, H. E., & Benton, E. J. (1913). A history of the United States. Heath & Company. https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds02bour/mode/2up

Brown, B., & Jolivette, G. (2005, October). A primer: Three strikes–the impact after more than a decade. Legislative Analyst’s Office, California State Legislature. https://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024a, April 17). Correctional officers and bailiffs. Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved April 27, 2024, from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/correctional-officers.htm

‌Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024b, April 17). Court reporters and simultaneous captioners. Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed April 27, 2024, from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/court-reporters.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024c, April 22). Paralegals and legal assistants. Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved April 27, 2024, from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/paralegals-and-legal-assistants.htm

Bushway, S. D., Redlich, A. D., & Norris, R. J. (2014). An explicit test of plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial.” Criminology, 52(4), 723-754. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12054

Chaiken, M. R., & Chaiken, J. M. (1984). Offender types and public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 30(2), 195-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128784030002003

Chambliss, W. J. (2000). Power, politics, & crime. Routledge.

Cohen, T. H. (2014). Who is better at defending criminals? Does type of defense attorney matter in terms of producing favorable case outcomes. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(1), 29-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412461149

Criminal Justice Standards Committee. (2017). Prosecution function. In Criminal justice standards (4th ed.). American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/

‌Demuth, S. (2006). Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and outcomes: A comparison of Hispanic, Black, and White felony arrestees. Criminology, 41(3), 873-908. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01007.x

Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. (2014, June 12). FAQs: Judges in the United States. Quality Judges Initiative, University of Denver. https://iaals.du.edu/publications/faqs-judges-united-states

Fortino, M. (2021, October 15). Study shows public defenders outperform court appointed private attorneys. Criminal Legal News, 44. https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2021/oct/15/study-shows-public-defenders-outperform-court-appointed-private-attorneys/

Frase, R. S. (2019). Forty years of American sentencing guidelines: What have we learned? Crime and Justice, 48(1), 79-135. https://doi.org/10.1086/701503

Friedman, L. M. (2005). A history of American law (3rd ed.). Touchstone Books.

Gabbidon, S. L., Kowal, L. K., Jordan, K. L., Roberts, J. L., & Vincenzi, N. (2008). Race-based peremptory challenges: An empirical analysis of litigation from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2002–2006. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-007-9027-6

George, T. E., & Yoon, A. H. (2017). Measuring justice in state courts: The demographics of the state judiciary. Vanderbilt Law Review, 70(6), 1887-1910. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol70/iss6/10/

Gertner, N. (2010). A short history of American sentencing: Too little law, too much law, or just right. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 691-708. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol100/iss3/4/

Geyh, C. G. (2008). Methods of judicial selection and their impact on judicial independence. Daedalus, 137(4), 86-101. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/54

Gibson, S., Harris, B., Waters, N., Genthon, K., Hamilton, M., Bailey Stevens, E., Moffett, M., & Robinson, D. (Eds.). (2023, October 9). CSP STAT overview. Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.courtstatistics.org/court-statistics/interactive-caseload-data-displays/csp-stat-nav-cards-first-row/csp-stat-overview

Gillman, H. (2001). The votes that counted: How the court decided the 2000 presidential election. University of Chicago Press.

Gordon, S. C., & Huber, G. (2007). The effect of electoral competitiveness on incumbent behavior. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(2), 107-138. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1335455

Hammer, T. J. (2002). The long and arduous journey to truth-in-sentencing in Wisconsin. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 15(1), 15-18. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub/136

Hemmens, C., Brody, D. C., & Spohn, C. C. (2010). Criminal courts: A contemporary perspective. SAGE.

Hessick, C. B., & Morse, M. (2020). Picking prosecutors. Iowa Law Review, 105(4), 1537-1590. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3551506

Husak, D. (2008). Overcriminalization: The limits of the criminal law. Oxford University Press.

Illinois Courts. (n.d.). How cases proceed through the courts. State of Illinois. https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/public/how-cases-proceed-through-the-courts/

Jamieson, K. H., & Hardy, B. W. (2008). Will ignorance & partisan election of judges undermine public trust? Daedalus, 137(4), 11-15. https://www.amacad.org/publication/partisan-election-judges-undermine-public-trust

Jefferson, Thomas. (1789, July 11). [Letter to Thomas Paine]. National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-15-02-0259

Karch, A., & Cravens, M. (2014). Rapid diffusion and policy reform: The adoption and modification of three strikes laws. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14(4), 461-491. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24710977

Kieso, D. W. (2005). Unjust sentencing and the California Three Strikes law. LFB Scholarly Publishing.

‌McCoy, C. (2005). Plea bargaining as coercion: The trial penalty and plea bargaining reform. Criminal Law Quarterly, 50, 67-107. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/clwqrty50&div=9&id=&page=

Missouri Courts. (n.d.). The bicentennial of the Missouri judiciary. https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=174544

Mullen, R., Arbiter, N., Plepler, C. R., & Bond, D. J. (2019). In-prison therapeutic communities in California. Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal of Therapeutic Communities, 40(3/4), 142-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/TC-06-2019-0007

Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2018). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.

New Hampshire Judicial Branch (n.d.). How judges are selected. State of New Hampshire. Retrieved December 28, 2023, from https://www.courts.nh.gov/students/guide-new-hampshire-courts/how-judges-are-selected

New York State Unified Court System. (n.d.). 8th judicial district: Court structure. Retrieved June 1, 2024, from https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/8jd/structure.shtml

Pisciotta, A. W. (1994). Benevolent repression: Social control and the American reformatory-prison movement. NYU Press.

Roman, D. (2011). Under the Rape Shield: A historical and comparative perspective on the Rape Shield Laws. Working Papers in Feminist Research, UCLA Center for the Study of Women. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0w62h4dp

Sasani, A. (2023, December 12). Kate Cox case: What led to the Texan fleeing the state for an abortion? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/12/kate-cox-texas-abortion-case-explained

Sobel, R. S., & Hall, J. C. (2007). The effect of judicial selection process on judicial quality: The role of partisan politics. Cato Journal, 27(1), 69-82. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2007/1/cj27n1-6.pdf

Spohn, C. (1990). The sentencing decisions of Black and White judges: Expected and unexpected similarities. Law & Society Review, 24(5), 1197-1216. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053666

Spohn, C. (2014). Twentieth-century sentencing reform movement: Looking backward, moving forward. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(4), 535-545. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12095

Spohn, C. (2015). Evolution of sentencing research. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 225-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12125

Texas Judicial Branch. (2023, October). Court structure of Texas. https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457606/court-structure-chart-october-2023.pdf

Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. Oxford University Press.

Tonry, M. (1998). Sentencing matters. Oxford University Press.

Tonry, M. (2013). Sentencing in America, 1975–2025. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 141-198. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/671134

Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts. (2011). A guide to Washington state courts (12th ed.). Washington Courts. https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/CourtGuide2011.pdf

Wilson, J. (2013). Thinking about crime (Rev. ed.). Basic Books.

Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. University of Chicago Press.

Wright, J. D., & Rossi, P. H. (1985). The armed criminal in America: A survey of incarcerated felons. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-J28-PURL-gpo81476