Low of Business
naifkhleef
Chap003_Pre.pptChapter 03
The U.S. Legal System
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
*
Chapter 3: The U.S. Legal System
Chapter 3 Case Hypothetical #1
Officer Brian Perkins was having a difficult Monday morning. For the past three hours, he was responsible for “serving process” in three (3) civil cases (As Chapter 3 indicates, service of process is the procedure by which courts present litigation documents to defendants. Those documents typically consist of a complaint, which specifies the factual and legal basis for the lawsuit and the relief the plaintiff seeks, and a summons, a court order that notifies the defendant of the lawsuit and explains how and when to respond to the complaint). For the first civil case, Merriwether v. Alstott, Officer Perkins attempted to serve the defendant Harry Alstott at his home, but no one appeared to be there. For the second civil case, Setliff v. Sanders, the person answering the door claimed the defendant, Marshall Sanders, did not live there, and that he did not even know who Marshall Sanders was. Leaving the premises, Officer Perkins surmised that the residential address indicated on the summons was incorrect. Either that, or the person who answered the door was lying.
For his third attempt at service of process that morning, in a lawsuit captioned Jackson v. Graves, Officer Perkins drove to the home of Laticia M. Graves at 721 Magnolia Street. Officer Perkins knocked on the door of the dilapidated house, and although no one answered the door, a second-story window opened almost immediately. A female in the house looked down from her second story vantage point and pointedly asked Officer Perkins, “What do you want?” Officer Perkins responded with a question, “Are you Laticia Graves,” to which the woman responded, “Yeah. What’s it to you?”
Officer Perkins asked the not-so-polite occupant to open the door, to which she responded, “I ain’t comin’ down there, and if you ain’t got a warrant, you ain’t comin’ in.” Frustrated, Officer Perkins replied, “Well, I have civil papers to serve you, ma’am, and if you won’t come down to get them, I’m going to put them in your mailbox.” The response was, “I ain’t comin’ to the door.”
Officer Perkins immediately proceeded to the mailbox, and put the complaint and summons in the matter of Jackson v. Graves in the box. The address on the mailbox indicated 721 Magnolia Street. In his notes, Officer Graves wrote that the defendant, Laticia Graves, had been served with process on Monday, September 13, 2010 at 11:47 a.m. As he entered his patrol car, Officer Perkins looked backed at the second-story window from which he had received his impolite greeting. The woman had since closed the window, and was watching his every move.
Did Officer Perkins effectively serve process on the defendant, Laticia Graves? Why or why not?
3-*
Chapter 3 Case Hypothetical: Officer Brian Perkins was having a difficult Monday morning. For the past three hours, he was responsible for “serving process” in three (3) civil cases (As Chapter 3 indicates, service of process is the procedure by which courts present litigation documents to defendants. Those documents typically consist of a complaint, which specifies the factual and legal basis for the lawsuit and the relief the plaintiff seeks, and a summons, a court order that notifies the defendant of the lawsuit and explains how and when to respond to the complaint). For the first civil case, Merriwether v. Alstott, Officer Perkins attempted to serve the defendant Harry Alstott at his home, but no one appeared to be there. For the second civil case, Setliff v. Sanders, the person answering the door claimed the defendant, Marshall Sanders, did not live there, and that he did not even know who Marshall Sanders was. Leaving the premises, Officer Perkins surmised that the residential address indicated on the summons was incorrect. Either that, or the person who answered the door was lying. For his third attempt at service of process that morning, in a lawsuit captioned Jackson v. Graves, Officer Perkins drove to the home of Laticia M. Graves at 721 Magnolia Street. Officer Perkins knocked on the door of the dilapidated house, and although no one answered the door, a second-story window opened almost immediately. A female in the house looked down from her second story vantage point and pointedly asked Officer Perkins, “What do you want?” Officer Perkins responded with a question, “Are you Laticia Graves,” to which the woman responded, “Yeah. What’s it to you?” Officer Perkins asked the not-so-polite occupant to open the door, to which she responded, “I ain’t comin’ down there, and if you ain’t got a warrant, you ain’t comin’ in.” Frustrated, Officer Perkins replied, “Well, I have civil papers to serve you, ma’am, and if you won’t come down to get them, I’m going to put them in your mailbox.” The response was, “I ain’t comin’ to the door.” Officer Perkins immediately proceeded to the mailbox, and put the complaint and summons in the matter of Jackson v. Graves in the box. The address on the mailbox indicated 721 Magnolia Street. In his notes, Officer Graves wrote that the defendant, Laticia Graves, had been served with process on Monday, September 13, 2010 at 11:47 a.m. As he entered his patrol car, Officer Perkins looked backed at the second-story window from which he had received his impolite greeting. The woman had since closed the window, and was watching his every move. Did Officer Perkins effectively serve process on the defendant, Laticia Graves? Why or why not?
*
Chapter 3 Case Hypothetical #2
Defendant Woodson is an African-American male accused of murdering a white female in an apartment burglary. During the jury selection process, Prosecutor Forbes exercises only two peremptory challenges, excusing from service the only two African-Americans in the jury. An all-white jury is eventually empanelled, and Defendant Woodson is convicted of first-degree murder, with life imprisonment imposed as punishment.
After the jury verdict is announced, Prosecutor Forbes is questioned by the local media concerning his exercise of the peremptory challenges. Prosecutor Forbes explains that race was not a factor in his decision, but that the two potential jurors were excused “because they have facial hair, and as a matter of practice, I do not want individuals with facial hair serving on my jury.” Further, Prosecutor Forbes states “I categorically deny that race played any factor whatsoever in the jury selection process.”
On appeal, should the appellate court: 1) deem Prosecutor Forbes’ actions reversible error, and remand the case to the trial court level to be retried; 2) vacate (nullify) the jury verdict, and dismiss the charges against Defendant Woodson; or
3) allow the conviction to stand? Should prosecutors be allowed to consider race as a factor in the jury selection process? Gender? Age?
3-*
*
Chapter 3 Case Hypothetical: Defendant Woodson is an African-American male accused of murdering a white female in an apartment burglary. During the jury selection process, Prosecutor Forbes exercises only two peremptory challenges, excusing from service the only two African-Americans in the jury. An all-white jury is eventually empanelled, and Defendant Woodson is convicted of first-degree murder, with life imprisonment imposed as punishment. After the jury verdict is announced, Prosecutor Forbes is questioned by the local media concerning his exercise of the peremptory challenges. Prosecutor Forbes explains that race was not a factor in his decision, but that the two potential jurors were excused “because they have facial hair, and as a matter of practice, I do not want individuals with facial hair serving on my jury.” Further, Prosecutor Forbes states “I categorically deny that race played any factor whatsoever in the jury selection process.” On appeal, should the appellate court: 1) deem Prosecutor Forbes’ actions reversible error, and remand the case to the trial court level to be retried; 2) nullify the jury verdict, and dismiss the charges against Defendant Woodson; or 3) allow the conviction to stand? Should prosecutors be allowed to consider race, gender, and age as factors in the jury selection process?
Types of Jurisdiction
- Original Jurisdiction: The power to hear and decide cases when they first enter the legal system
- Appellate Jurisdiction: The power to review previous judicial decisions to determine whether trial courts erred in their decisions
3-*
*
“Jurisdiction” refers to the power of a court to hear a particular case. Types of jurisdiction include “original” jurisdiction, which refers to the power to hear and decide a case when it first enters the legal system, and “appellate jurisdiction, which refers to the power to review a lower court decision to determine whether the lower court erred in rendering its verdict.
Types of Jurisdiction
- In personam jurisdiction: The power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court
- Subject-matter jurisdiction: The power to hear certain kinds of cases
3-*
*
Other types of jurisdiction include “in personam” jurisdiction, which refers to the power to render a decision affecting the rights of specific persons before the court, and “subject-matter” jurisdiction, which refers to the power to hear certain kinds of cases.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction
- Admiralty cases
- Bankruptcy cases
- Federal criminal prosecutions
- Cases in which one state sues another state
- Claims against the United States
- Federal patent, trademark, and copyright claims
- Other claims involving federal statutes that specify exclusive federal jurisdiction
3-*
*
Federal courts have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over the following types of litigation: admiralty cases; bankruptcy cases; federal criminal prosecutions; cases in which one state sues another state; claims against the United States; federal patent, trademark, and copyright claims; and other claims involving federal statutes that specify exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: Concurrent Federal and State Jurisdiction
- Federal question cases
- Diversity of citizenship cases
3-*
*
Federal and state courts have “concurrent,” or shared, subject-matter jurisdiction over “federal question” and “diversity of citizenship” cases.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: State Jurisdiction
- All cases not falling under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction
3-*
*
State courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over all cases not falling under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
The Federal Court System
- The United States Supreme Court
- Intermediate Courts of Appeal
- Federal Trial Courts (U.S. District Courts)
3-*
*
The federal court system is a “tri-partite” system consisting of three levels. The U.S. District Courts are the federal trial courts, the intermediate courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction over all federal trial courts, and the United States Supreme Court has ultimate appellate jurisdiction, with the power to review all lower court decisions.
State Court Systems
- State Supreme Courts
- Intermediate Courts of Appeal
- State Trial Courts
3-*
*
State court systems are also “tri-partite” systems consisting of three levels. The state trial courts have original jurisdiction over all state-related cases, the intermediate courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction over all state trial courts, and the state supreme court has the power to review all lower court decisions.
Threshold Requirements for Litigation
- Standing (to sue)
- Case or Controversy (Justiciable Controversy)
- Ripeness
3-*
*
In order to initiate litigation, the plaintiff must have “standing” to sue, there must be a “justiciable” controversy, and the case must be “ripe” for trial.
Steps in Civil Litigation:
The Pretrial Stage
- Informal Negotiations
- Pleadings
- Service of Process
- Defendant’s Response
- Pretrial Motions
- Discovery
- Pretrial Conference
3-*
*
The “pre-trial” steps in civil litigation include informal negotiations, pleadings, service of process, the defendant’s response, pretrial motions, discovery, and the pre-trial conference.
Steps in Civil Litigation:
The Trial
- Jury Selection
- Opening Statements
- Examination of Witnesses and Presentation of Evidence
- Closing Arguments
- Jury Instructions
3-*
*
The stages of a trial include jury selection, opening statements, the examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and jury instructions.
Steps in Civil Litigation:
Post-Trial Motions
- Motion For Judgment In Accordance With Verdict
- Motion For Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict
- Motion For New Trial
3-*
*
Post-trial motions include the motion for judgment in accordance with the verdict, the motion for judgment notwithstanding (or in spite of) the verdict, and the motion for a new trial.
Steps in Civil Litigation:
Appellate Procedure
3-*
*
Beyond the trial stage, constitutional due process guarantees the right to appeal the lower court decision. The appellant must follow appropriate procedural rules in order to “perfect” (or establish) the appeal.
Appellate Court Decision-Making Powers
- Affirmation
- Modification
- Reversal
- Remand
3-*
*
Upon review of a lower court decision, the appellate court has the right to affirm the decision, modify it, reverse it, or remand the case to the trial court level to be re-heard either wholly or partially.
