Dual Court SystemEssay title: Dual Court SystemQ1. What is the dual-court system? Why do we have adual court system?The dual-court system is the result of a general a agreementamong the nation’s founders about the need for individual states to retain significant legislative authority and judicial autonomy separate from federal control. The reason why we have a dual-court system is, back then; new states joining the union were assured of limited federal intervention into local affairs. The state legislatures were free to create laws, and state court systems were needed to hear cases in which violations of those laws occurred. Today, however, state courts do not hear cases involving alleged violations of federal law, nor do federal courts involve themselves in deciding issues of state law unless there is a conflict between local or state statues and federal constitutional guarantees. When that happens, claimed violations of federal due process guarantees especially those found in the Bill of Rights.
As a result, federal court cases are subject to the scrutiny of judicial review by both the federal and state government. In order to fully understand what was at stake in these cases, i.e., the federal courts can only review what the state legislatures enacted and their judicial decisions. Under the ‘two pronged test’ it is necessary to consider only the states themselves.[1] States are the main drivers of U.S. law. However, states’ legislatures may also interpret and determine what their courts review. States must determine what laws, treaties, etc. must be re-enacted and then decide whether or not they follow the constitutional principles set forth in the Constitution. States are elected by voters, and can elect a Governor, U.S. Senator, or a representative to congress. Since each state has in its own constitutional law more restrictive laws, they tend to have lower levels of the two-pronged process.[1] The primary goal of the dual-counsel system is to protect state sovereignty, and a number of states have created their own dual-counsel courts to deal with constitutional issues within the state, especially because the federal government is often not involved.[2] If a state or local legislator violates national law by enacting any of these two laws or by enforcing them in the state, that particular legislature (a state senator or a state representative) can potentially be held responsible for that violation. Some attorneys general, such as John Doe, are also prohibited from doing so. Therefore, if you have a law that does not have such a strict interpretation, you may want to see an attorney general with the clarity of mind required by your state.
The basic principle of the dual-counsel system is that a non-confessional party is barred from performing functions which they view as in violation of local or state statutes or state law, and vice versa. The federal court system operates on the premise that the U.S. supreme court will review a federal lawsuit if or when the Supreme Court determines that the statute or statute violates the constitution.[3] The federal court system may not make a decision about whether that law is valid simply because it is interpreted by a federal court. [4] State law is the rule. However, the federal courts will often order the states directly to perform functions which they view as in violation of state law. That is, even though these state-level “laws” are not binding on the federal government, the laws themselves may not be enforced at the federal level.[5] Therefore, the laws in question are interpreted by the federal court.[6] The federal courts will evaluate these laws and decide whether or not those states will violate the federal laws.[7]
Since we have a non-confessional legal system, we have to rely on the legislative process of state legislatures where it may be difficult for a particular state to implement any state law. The federal courts are responsible for interpreting state statutes under the power to impose new constitutional provisions.[8] This is the primary basis upon which our constitution governs federal law.[1] When the United States Congress is not in charge, the federal courts interpret the federal statutes in our courts.[5]
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that, absent a formal federal adjudication process, statutes in the United States that have become unenforceable may not be enforced under the federal law.[3] In the U.S. Supreme Court on March 19, 2011, we granted certiorari to hold that state laws violate federal law without the consent of the Supreme Court.[2] We had relied extensively on earlier U.S. decisions in these cases and conclude without giving the Supreme Court too much space to take on the cases in question. We also said we would not be holding invalid state statutes. Indeed, we did hold that the federal courts were not obligated either to interpret or to enforce statutes as they existed before we granted certiorari.[
Could the drive toward court unification eventually lead tomonolithic court system? Would such system be effective?No, the drive towards court unification could eventually lead to a monolithic court system because the would give the federal court system too much control and besides, state legislative would make the better decision when it comes to the needs and local affairs. This would not be an effective solution because the system is too complex. The state legislature is better fit to make right decision about local affairs.
Q2. Chapter 8 says that 90% of all criminal cases carried beyondthe initial stages are finally resolved through pleabargaining. What are some of the problems associated withplea bargaining? Given those problems, do you believethat plea bargaining is an acceptable practice in today’scriminal justice system?The problems associated with plea bargaining are enteredpleas may be choose for the punishment likely to be associated with them rather than for their accuracy in describing the criminal offense in which the defendant was involved. For instance, a charge of indecent liberties, for example, in which the defendant is accused of sexual
misconduct may be pleaded out as assault. Such a plea, which takes advantage of the fact those indecent liberties, can be thought of as a form of sexual assault, would effectively disguise the true nature of the offense. Law and order advocates, who generally favor harsh punishment and long jail terms, claim that plea bargaining results in unjustifiably light sentences. As a consequence, prosecutors who regularly engage in the practice rarely advertise it. Often unrealized is the fact that plea bargaining can be a powerful prosecutorial tool which can be misused. I think that plea bargaining is acceptable practice used in today’s criminal justice system because it results in a quick conviction without the need to commit the time and resources necessary for a trial and judges accept pleas which are result of bargaining process because such pleas reduce the workload of the court.
[¶4] Even after these examples are taken, the law’s general purpose of protecting the state against the abuse of power undermines the government’s claims that plea bargaining harms the people and that it is constitutionally permissible. But it is hard not to fall into the trap of the assumption that when a guilty plea is not pled out or offered, it is just as wrong as if it were. Indeed, when pleading is rejected by a court of law and when a defendant is arrested, the state’s interest is served with a court ruling that the plea is fair, just, and fair on its face, and with legal representation. It is hard for a rational person to understand the power and the legal risks that a plea bargain creates, especially if the defendant is charged with a crime when he or she is innocent.
[¶5] This is often taken to mean that when a defendant is convicted, the state must win on the merits, but that is a very different approach. The issue of when plea bargaining is allowed to proceed in our society, while we are making the decision about the fairness and the justice of public corruption, is far more complicated than that. It is not quite as simple as that, but it is important nonetheless.
[¶6][*] I find this interpretation fundamentally misleading. While it will take some time to explain the constitutional rights involved in the plea bargain itself, some of the factors involved in the plea bargaining are clear enough in practice in our society and, crucially, those in our criminal justice system that violate the constitutional rights of innocent until proven guilty are simply omitted from the discussion below. As a result, as the constitutional rights of some criminal defendants are not directly protected by the criminal law, it is difficult and likely impossible to convince a jury to convict a defendant of an offense committed for which the state has found him or her to be innocent. The plea bargain may, in that respect, not serve a valuable public good. The court’s focus here is rather on the potential benefits of plea bargaining, which is hardly a compelling justification for the practice. Although the court appears to have sought to reduce the harm to innocent members of the public by plea negotiations, it seems not to have been able to achieve substantial benefits. Indeed, the only thing of significance here is that we cannot really reach the issue directly because we are left with the problem of sentencing and the fact that the plea bargain does not create any meaningful harm.
[¶7] When we appeal a conviction without giving a rational basis for plea pleading, we need some form of reasonable defense or a public good to explain why the trial court should not presume that a defendant is going to be rehabilitated from a violent, self-defeating behavior, to the point where the trial judge could impose harsh and dangerous jail terms and even to the point where a plea bargain may be called against him. When a defendant is convicted of felonies, we cannot say that the defendant had a right to resist. We must say that he had a reasonable expectation of safety because he was not able to show that he could prove that he was innocent. It is obvious that if he is found to have violated a plea agreement (if he had indeed violated it), the government could appeal him even if the plea agreement itself is considered to be admissible. It would also be true that in many cases the government had to appeal because in deciding the charge of false imprisonment, the court has the right to consider whether the case has merit at all. Sometimes it is not that the defendant had a right to resist
Q3. What is an expert witness? A lay witness? What different kinds of testimony might they provide? What are some challenges of expert testimony?
An expert witness is a person who has knowledge and skills recognized by the court as relevant to the determination of guilt or innocence. Lay witness is an eyewitness, character witness, or other person called upon to testify who is not considered an expert. Expert witness testimony demonstrates their expertise through education, work experience, publications, and awards. Their testimony at trial provides an effective way of introducing scientific evidence in such areas as medicine, psychology, ballistics, crime scene analysis, photography, and many other disciplines. Lay witness testimony are going to be about what they saw like who committed
Dual Court System And Individual States. (October 8, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.freeessays.education/dual-court-system-and-individual-states-essay/