8.1 Introduction to American Courts
Wesley B. Maier, PhD and Kadence C. Maier
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, thereby 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.
Colonial courts operated with a significant degree of local autonomy, and each colony developed its own unique court structure and system that 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 and perpetuating outcomes for certain offenses as crimes against both civil and religious authorities. At the local level, a single magistrate or justice of the peace typically presided over petty crimes. County courts were essential in handling more serious crime and a broad spectrum of cases, including civil disputes, criminal offenses, and matters related to local governance. As caseloads increased, colonies implemented the “courts of appeals,” which were 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.
Punishments in Colonial America were often severe, designed not only to penalize the offender but 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 them 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, which established the federal court system while allowing each state to maintain its unique court system. Despite its 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, another 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.
Profound transformations reshaped the American court system following the Civil War and the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. These transitions left 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, which was 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 the 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, Congress solidified these changes by enacting the Judiciary Act of 1891, which established nine courts of appeals aligning with each judicial circuit.
However, the response to the growing state populations resulted in poorly organized court structures. States adapted reactively by hastily establishing city courts and specialty courts. This resulted in overlapping jurisdictions with consequential implications (Friedman, 2005). This chaotic expansion across various state courts led to a diverse array of state court structures and fostered confusion that persists as an issue in contemporary society.
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 a 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 in 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. This process concludes nearly 95% of all criminal cases in the US. (Bibas, 2006). As a result, plea negotiations assume a pivotal role in the court system. While 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.
Attributions
- Figure 8.3: The Political Machine that goes without Horses by Unknown author is released under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
- Figure 8.4: In the Stocks by Henry Eldridge Bourne and Elbert Jay Benton in the public domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.
- Figure 8.5: Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union by N. Mendal Shafer in the public domain; This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or fewer.
- Figure 8.6: Our Overworked Supreme Court by Joseph Ferdinand Keppler in the public domain; This work is from the Library of Congress. According to the LOC, there are no known copyright restrictions on the use of this work.
Legal professionals employed by the government, typically at the local, state, or federal level, who are responsible for representing the state or the people in criminal cases. Their primary duty is to analyze alleged crimes, determine whether there is sufficient evidence to file charges against suspects, negotiate plea deals and, within the bounds of the law, present their case for the conviction of individuals accused of committing crimes. Prosecutors work closely with law enforcement agencies to evaluate the gathered evidence, interview witnesses, and build a strong case against the accused. During trials, prosecutors present evidence, examine witnesses, and argue the case to convince the judge or jury of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, prosecutors may negotiate plea bargains with defendants, where the accused agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence. The primary objective of prosecutors is to uphold the law, protect the rights of victims, seek justice by holding individuals accountable for wrongdoing, ensure public safety, and facilitate the fair and impartial adjudication of criminal cases.
A legal framework where two opposing parties, typically the prosecution and the defense, present their cases before an impartial adjudicator, such as a judge or jury. This system relies on the principle of adversarial advocacy, wherein each party vigorously advocates for their position and challenges the evidence and arguments presented by the opposing side. The judge or jury then evaluates the evidence and arguments to determine guilt or innocence. The goal of this system is to ensure fair and transparent proceedings by allowing each party to advocate for their position and challenge that of the opposing side. The adversarial system is based on the principle that truth is most likely to emerge from the clash of opposing arguments, rather than through the efforts of an inquisitorial authority.
In criminal law, reasonable doubt is the standard of proof required for conviction in a criminal trial. It signifies the level of uncertainty that a reasonable person might have after reviewing all the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. Reasonable doubt exists when, after careful consideration of all the evidence presented, there remains a lingering uncertainty that a reasonable person would harbor about the defendant's guilt. In other words, it is the level of certainty that a juror or judge must have regarding the guilt of the defendant. A verdict of guilty can only be reached if the jury (or judge) is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, meaning there is no other logical explanation based on the evidence presented. This standard emphasizes the principle that a defendant should not be convicted unless guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, ensuring a fair and just legal process.
Individuals who have been formally accused of committing a crime and are facing legal proceedings in a court of law to determine their guilt or innocence. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty and have the right to present a defense against the charges brought against them.
