Precedent is a crucial characteristic of the common law. Stare decisis is Latin for “let the decision stand.” Decisions made by judges in previous cases provide for the benchmark for cases. All decisions made follow patterns of previous cases with similar facts. The use of precedent creates consistency and fairness in the court system. The use of precedent in ruling provides for broad policy accumulated over time. Rather than solving a range of legal problems, the court system strives to resolve what is necessary. The court system is conservative, and there is a need to achieve flexibility in the courts, there is a need to distinguish between precedents.
The American Supreme court, on limited occasions, acts as the original jurisdiction for cases. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s primary role is to review decisions made by the highest court and the lower federal courts. The appellate jurisdiction is somewhat discretionary than mandatory. Granting of the writ of certiorari allows the Supreme Court to exercise this discretion mandate. The process starts with a petition being signed by a party, and the Supreme Court issues orders to lower courts and the high court to present case records to determine whether the law was applied correctly.
The rule of four is when four Supreme Court justices vote to grant certiorari to review a case. This phenomenon helps a minority of court impose on the majority on a question that is viewed as inappropriate. The rule of four is not contained in the rule of law but undertaken as customary since the supreme court gained the ability to act independently own docket with the creation of the circuit courts of Appeal in 1891 (Fang, Johnson, & Roberts, 2007).
The court system is planned as a hierarchical top-down flow of authority. Policy directive is from a central office to all local courts and is held accountable by the state high court of last resort. Assembly line justice is the problem of a significant difference between the number of cases and the number of judges. The court system from the defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and even probation officers is greatly understaffed. A phenomenon witnessed in all aspects of the judicial system. The entire personnel has to deal with strict deadlines and long calendar schedules. Although witnesses and reported nearly 50years ago, the situation is still the same, an understaffed and underfunded court system. Assembly line justice leads to cases being handled in bulk and specialization in specific tasks. Lower Courts result in sentencing based on defendant membership class as opposed to individual case consideration.
Community prosecution is when district attorney files charges and seeks conviction to fulfill a community urge to lower crime rates. The act of stress case processing is slightly blurry as community prosecutors now diverse community problems ranging from juvenile offenders, domestic violence, and drug abuse (center for court innovation, 2012b). The specific underlying problem is difficult to pin down since the approach is dependent on community needs as opposed to national program guides (William vs. steward, 2013). All approaches have three elements, firstly the prosecutor’s role is to prosecute cases and decrease crime rates. Secondly, effective results are achieved within small and manageable communities leading to working out of neighborhood offices. Thirdly, change is achieved through community partnership as opposed to prosecutors dictating and often are the time’s community leaders set the crime development agenda. This program has led to different features where district attorneys use civil remedies to combat crime. Generally, community prosecution stresses crime prevention and a proactive approach to fight crime (miles, 2013).
Ineffective Assistance of counsel deems a trial proceeding as unjust. An attorney’s conduct on strategy and tactic all make dangerous presumptions of competent and capable performance. Thus, the Supreme Court has recognized the practical Assistance of counsel as mandatory to the sixth amendment guarantee (McMann vs. Richardson, 1970). Knowles vs. Mirzayance, 2009, in the ineffective ruling Assistance of counsel, it can be used to reverse a ruling deemed unfair if it were different. For death penalty cases, the standards are even higher. In a case with gross misconduct with defense attorney failing to investigate the defendant’s troubled background, new sentencing was ordered (Wiggins v. Smith, 2003). Practical Assistance of counsel incorporates court trials and pretrial stages of criminal prosecution, leading to plea bargain resolution. Missouri vs. Frye and Lafler vs. cooper signaled a shift in sixth amendment jurisprudence to encompass the plea bargain as part of the criminal justice system.
Victim Impact Statements are information oral or written of crime impact on the victim. These statements are used to convince the court to give severe sentences, although appeals for leniency happen occasionally. Victims offering their statements during trial usually should not uninterrupted. In two instances, Booth vs. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina vs. Gathers (1989), the court deemed unconstitutional victim impact statements for capital cases. Victim impact statement imposed an unacceptable risk of jury unjustly giving a death penalty. Prosecutors swaying the jury emotionally for a death penalty after the victim’s grandmother offered an emotional victim impact statement (Payne vs. Tennessee, 1991).
U.S supreme held that ‘on the scene assessment of probable cause person arrested should be arraigned before a magistrate for judicial determination of the probable cause. Initial Appearance is also referred to as initial hearing or Gerstein hearing, which statutes offer it should be immediately. In the county of riverside vs. McLaughlin (1981), the Supreme Court allows this to should happen within 48 hours after warrantless arrest.
Commonly called the Brady rule, the U.S Supreme Court held that suppression of moderate evidence, after a request by accuse, by the prosecution deemed as a violation of due process (Brady vs. Maryland, 1963). The prosecution is under no obligation to give anything deemed exculpatory information. The Brady rule only applies to relevant evidence. A reasonable probability is required for any exculpatory evidence to be provided.
An offender pleads guilty to criminal charges with intent to receive leniency from the state is the process of plea bargaining. The plea bargain can be charge bargaining, sentence bargaining, or count bargaining. Count bargaining is where offenders plead guilty for one or more counts in charges, and the prosecutor dismisses the rest of the charges. Secondly, charge bargain. The offender pleads guilty to a less severe charge than initially convicted. Sentence bargaining, the defendant’s guilty plea, is in exchange for leniency during sentencing. The defendant is offered a less sentence on the maximum offense penalty.