Article Critique: Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment 1
Article Critique 2:
Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup
Maria Hensley
School of Criminal Justice: Cybercrime Investigation, Liberty University
CJUS 500, Dr. Obinyan
October 15th, 2025
Author Note
Maria Hensley
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Maria Hensley, Email: mehensley1@liberty.edu.
Abstract
State v. Federal? We all know that the Federal government will always come out ahead,
and it is no different in the court systems. We can view these two courts as similar yet distinct,
with state courts serving as the younger sibling and federal courts as the elder sibling. If we are
Article Critique: Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment 2
not satisfied with what the little brother has to offer, we can approach the big brother to ask if
he will speak with the little brother. This same concept applies to the dual-court system, but it
comes with significantly more formal documentation when requesting Big Brother. A writ of
certiorari is a request from a higher court, such as the Supreme Court, to a lower court to be
fully informed of a ruling on a case that the higher court is about to hear. Granting a writ of
certiorari allows the Supreme Court to hear a case, and its decision can set a new legal
precedent that all lower courts must follow. It is the principal way federal laws are interpreted
by resolving conflicting rulings from different federal courts, such as in the 1966 landmark case
of Arizona v.
Miranda.
Precedential value is the authority that a past court decision holds in a future, similar
legal case. In standard law systems, when the Supreme Court decides a case, it becomes the
authoritative decision, and all other courts must adhere to this decision (stare decisis) when
faced with similar cases presented in lower courts. This concept of precedence can be
established by the higher courts, particularly through a majority opinion, and the facts of the
case. Allowing lower courts to rule on future cases based on precedent ensures fairness and
consistency within the courts' workgroup. Over time, we see the evolution of law shaped by
these precedents, as exemplified by the historical cases of Brown v. Board of Education, which
overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, and subsequently was overturned by Ferguson v. Texas. This is
how law evolves within the Dual-Court systems. However, setting a new precedent does not
automatically guarantee a not guilty verdict for defendants charged with similar crimes. Many
defendants are charged with similar crimes, and a plea agreement is often in place. However,
they are often unaware of this new precedent and their increased odds of winning a trial due to
the Courtroom Workgroup's use of coercion, which offers the defendant the option to plead
guilty to lesser charges, resulting in a shorter sentence. (Haiskell, 2024)
Article Critique: Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment 3
In both Federal and State court systems, there is an abundance of criminal cases that
need adjudication. These criminal cases range from misdemeanors to felonies. The defendant’s
attorney is either a chosen, hired, and retained attorney or an assigned public defender, with
the majority being the latter. To help clear the case load and court dockets, the Courtroom
Workgroup, comprising prosecutors, defense attorneys, public defenders, and a minimum of
judges, will offer a plea bargain to the majority of defendants. If they plead guilty, usually to
lesser charges, then they will not have a heavy sentence. The prosecution will make the
defendant feel as though it is the lesser of his two options: plead guilty to a lesser sentence, or
go to trial and be found guilty with a harsher sentence. In all honesty, who would not choose
the first option? Maybe the defendants have paid for an attorney? Probably. But most surely not
the defendants with a public defender. Most public defenders are also overburdened with cases,
so they often assist with plea bargaining, making their clients feel as if it is a great offer.
The Pew Research Center’s (PRC) analysis of pleas entered in fiscal year 2022 reveals that
of the 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases, 89.5% pled guilty, while another 8.2% had
their cases dismissed. Because the PRC’s data included pleas to misdemeanors, the percentage
of those who pleaded guilty to felonies is over 90%. Only 290 of the 71,954 defendants — just
0.4% — went to trial and were acquitted. (Haiskell, 2024)
Article 1: Critique
The article, Carpenter v. United States and the Future Fourth Amendment, by Michael
Price, The Champion, June 2018, made way for the Fourth Amendment in the new digital
world. After forty years of scrutiny, the “third-party doctrine,” a rule dictating that there can be
no reasonable expectation of privacy in personal information voluntarily shared with a “third
party” (Price, 2019), was cast aside in this landmark case, Carpenter v. U.S., where the
government violated search and seizure, obtaining four-months worth of cell-site location
information (CSLI) through a third-party cell phone carrier service provider without probable
cause or a warrant, giving them the evidence needed to convict the defendant, Timothy
Article Critique: Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment 4
Carpenter on the criminal charges of several robberies. Even the lower courts denied that Mr.
Carpenter’s appeals of his Fourth Amendment rights being violated, stating that under the
third-party doctrine, there was no privacy interest in CSLI because it had been conveyed to a
third party. However, the Supreme Court decided to take a closer look, given the fact that the
new age of technology does override our forefathers' interpretation of the Constitution’s Fourth
Amendment.
Article 1: Background
The Supreme Court considered whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to obtain
cell phone location records that show an individual’s location and movements over the course
of
127 days without first obtaining a warrant. (Tockson, 2021) Here is a case where both the Dual-
Court System and precedent play a role in the evolution of law and the era of Smart devices.
Article 1: Strengths and Weaknesses
Strength
•This case opens up the doors for future cases regarding the violation of our
constitutional rights in the world of technology.
•The decision sets a precedent for protecting a wide range of sensitive digital information
that third parties gather from persons several times a day in the virtual world.
Weaknesses
•The Justices' opinion on this case was not broad enough to conclude a concrete precedent.
•Consistency and contradiction in the lower courts' rulings on third-party searches, with some
judges leaving much gray area in the meaning behind their decisions. (Price, 2019)
Article 2: Background
Kansas v. Ventris, and the Sixth Amendment, Jeffrey B. Welty, Published for NC Criminal
Law on April 30, 2009.
Article Critique: Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment 5
The Dueling of the Court Systems. Ventris was charged and convicted of his crimes, but
appealed, stating that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he made incriminating
statements to a confidential informant who was placed in his jail cell as he awaited trial. The
prosecution conceded that the statements were obtained in violation of Ventris's Sixth
Amendment right to counsel and could not be used in the prosecution's main case. The
informant later testified at trial, and the statements made to him did not match what he had
just stated under oath on the witness stand, allowing the prosecution to impeach his testimony.
The trial court allowed the impeachment to be used, and Ventris was convicted. The duel
begins.
On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the trial court's conviction, ruling that
Ventris's Sixth Amendment rights were violated and that the statements from the informant
were inadmissible.
However, the prosecution was not letting up, stating that Ventris’s statements were
voluntary to his cellmate, the informant, and his Sixth Amendment rights were not violated.
Now the U.S.
Supreme Court has taken on the review of both lower courts' rulings and heard both arguments
— the dissent of the duel. The Justices overturned the Kansas court, holding that statements
obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment may be used for impeachment purposes if they
were voluntarily given.
Article 2: Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
This case may encourage more truth-telling when the defendant takes the stand or faces
the perjury consequences
Article Critique: Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment 6
Weaknesses
This opinion and ruling undermine our Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel, allowing
evidence to be seized unconstitutionally and later used against the defendant's
testimony.
Summary of Articles
In both cases, we see how the prosecution in the lower courts plays a significant role in
deceit with the Courtroom Workgroup. We also deal with constitutional amendments under the
spotlight during the adjudication of criminal charges. Many of us do not even think about the
rights we have and use every day we step out of our front doors. I am sure that more civilians
are not being charged with a crime whose constitutional rights are violated than there are
defendants who claim their rights are violated. As we saw in both articles, when the Supreme
Court rules on an issue in question, it does not skip a single line of words in its opinions,
including when it questions the lower courts' rulings, hence the Dual-Court Systems dueling it
out.
Conclusion: Personal Reflection, Position, and Christian Worldview The
Constitution is a sacred document that contains the rights of every person to liberty, life, and
freedom. Just as the Bible is a sacred book of documents that also contains the right of every
Christian to Jesus’ promise of freedom in John 8:36, "So if the Son sets you free, you will be
free indeed." Moreover, with both of these sacred writings, our everyday lives depend on
them. Just like Christians are unable to change the gospel words in our many versions of the
Bible, we as citizens cannot change the words of our forefathers. Instead, Christians learn to
adapt to what the Bible asks of them and appreciate what the Bible tells them they can look
forward to. This applies to each citizen who wakes up in the United States every day. We rely
on the words of the Constitution to drive a car, be educated, get medical treatment, vote, buy
a house, get married, and choose the path of a life with God.
Article Critique: Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroup Assignment 7
References
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 2400 (2007)
Haiskell, M. P., & May, J. (2024). From the president: Trying times: When defense counsel stand
against coercive plea bargains. Retrieved from https://www.nacdl.org/Article/JanFeb2024-
FromthePresidentTryingTimesWhenDefenseC
. The impact of Carpenter v. United States in the lower courts and the emerging Carpenter Test.
Retrieved from Tokson, M. (2021).
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/impactcarpenter-v-united-states-lower-courts-and-
emerging-carpentertest#:~:text=Carpenter%20held%20that%20individuals%20can,to
%20their%20cell%20ph one%20companies.
Wydra, E. B., Gorod, B. J., & Frazelee, B. F. (2018). Carpenter v. United States. Retrieved from
https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/carpenter-v-united-states/ #:~:text=In
%20Carpenter%20v.,it%20agreed%20to%20do%20so.
Welty, J. B. (2009). Kansas v. Ventris and the Sixth Amendment. Retrieved from
https://www.sog.unc.edu/blogs/nc-criminal-law/kansas-v-ventris-and-sixth-amendment
Price, M. (2019). Carpenter v. United States and the future Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from
https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/1dc6c2eb-56c1-4e96-b7be-7ee8a6c44a70/p48-
50_price_michael_carpenter-v-united_states_june_2018_champion.pdf
Kansas v. Ventris Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained. (2021). Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i60pHN_il0A
