Legal Proceedings: Evidence, Ruling & Interpretation - Essay Sample

Introduction

In court, some activities involve legal proceedings that are brought by the local authority, and some appeals are made against the decisions of the court. The legal proceedings are overall termed in a procedural process whereby the participants are allowed to give their evidence in backing up of their claims and in turn, make a ruling as the various interpretations of the law. The judge, jury, or the investigators make the ruling as per the facts and the legal matters. The issues that need the court to apply the legal process are given, for example, lawsuits, criminal cases, civil cases. The observations that are made in the court will be highlighted in this paper and be compared to the lessons that were taught in class. I will use online resources and books to come up with the best ideas about court observation.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The fact that acts and constitutional provisions are huge and that judges may not timely valid and support being followed. In creating a timeline for the cases, they can be handled in duo ways. One, the court may decide to disregard the cases that were earlier introduced and make the decision in particular cases, meaning that the judges are frequently inquired on making the laws. In the observations, it is clear that the court may hear crime and public issues of appeal and these appellate courts who give time for the habeas corpus appeals. One hundred seventy-eight judges are directed to the segments which are in the form of circuits. There is a Ninth Circuit that includes California, Arizona, and five other states and has 28 judges. When compared, the First Circuit, which consists of Maine, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and New Hampshire, has six judges. The appeals are heard by 3 -judge panel, and they continue to be reshuffled frequently so that there can be no sitting of two judges the same panel for more times, (Hemmens, Brody, Spohn, 2019).

The jury of judges reads scripted arguments and listens to the oral arguments, discusses the case, and votes on to stand with the case or reverse the lower court presiding. In criminal cases, the offender is convicted in federal courts appeals for cyberattacks; for example, the judges may decide to go ahead with the sentence given by the district court judge. If the two parties tend to have different views and conflicts, the entire case is rehearsed. It is uncommon for the circuits that have a majority number of judges; however, federal laws allow courts of appeals with more than 14 working judges to sit with fewer members.

In the supreme court, which is termed as the court with the last process from the federal court system, which involves a federal constitutional problem. The Supreme Court provides timely jurisdiction on a small number of situations, which includes the court processes from the states, the US, and the states, state, and the foreign citizen. The majority of the cases taken on appeal are from federal courts of appeal or state supreme courts. The court's appellate segment is mostly unconstructive- the court tends to choose cases that they may want to hear or not. The Supreme Court chooses the cases it wants to hear from the many that it has to review annually. For example, in a normal year, the Supreme Court may be asked to review around 10,000 cases, but it listens to around 100 (Hemmens, Brody, Spohn, 2019). When a client asks the Supreme Court to allow the case, they submit a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is an order given by the Supreme Court to the Lower Court and send the review of the case to the Supreme court. The court justices vote on whether to accept the case, and if four or more justices vote to allow for the petition, the case is given to the Court's segment. The rule used here is termed as the rule of the four, and if four votes are not obtained, the allowance for writ of certiorari is deprived, and the verdict of the lower court remains intact. The deprival of the acceptance of the appeal has not termed a conclusion on the evaluations and has to hold a probability potential. It primarily means that the court has refused to hear the case for whatever motives they may have (Hemmens, Brody, Spohn, 2019).

The Supreme Court has three objectives- resolving differences between states, resolving lower federal and state court conflicts, and three to determine legislative questions. The court uses these motives to allow for the cases that fit in the objectives provided. However, appeals to the centralized courts of appeal originate from the U.S district courts; the Supreme Court listens to appeals from the courts of appeals and state supreme courts. The choices of state supreme courts, however, are revised by the Supreme Court, depending on the valid federal questions that they may have. Many of the base Supreme Court cases in the area of criminal activities are the cases that have been appealed from the state supreme courts. For example, in a case that the client makes petitions that the constitutional rights were dishonored, the Supreme Court may agree to follow up with the case in case the supreme court appeal by the client was not satisfiable in case, there was an unfair trial, quick trial, racial discriminations or there was inadequate representation from his defense attorney, (Hemmens, Brody, Spohn, 2019).It is clear that most criminal and civil cases never get the attention of the US Supreme Court; therefore, there are many indifferences between states, federal districts, federal circuits. For example, there may be different decisions from the different court of Appeals from different circuits; a Fifth Circuit may have different constitutional reviews from the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court has the power to solve such indifferences, but it is if it decides to hear the case. However, if there are conflicts between the courts of appeals on legislative questions, the Supreme Case agrees to listen to the case and settle the conflict. Therefore, the Court may turn down the certiorari any time since there is no variability on thoughts on the matter in the circuit courts or lack of federal constitutional issues arising (Hemmens, Brody, Spohn, 2019).

In a study done by an Official Government, it has been stated that judges and magistrates are legislatively racists, purposely being more lenient while sentencing white criminals. A shocking report, provided by the Ministry of Justice showed that dark and Asian defendants are almost 20% likely to be sent to jail that the white ones. Moreover, the optimum prison sentence that is given to the Caucasian criminals by courts in England and Wales is usually six months shorter than the Afro-Caribbean criminals. Moreover, the report separated conviction and sentence rates through equivalent crimes and petitions, leaving the probability of wrong data in the report. In 2013, the Ministry of Justice said that there were problems with the system, and there were measures that were put in place to address the problem. In a Statistics on Race and Criminal Justice System 2012, it showed in the last years, black criminals receive police warnings and more probably to be ensued against in court than any other race, (Wright,2013). In white criminal sentencing is done in communal acts whereas, for black, Asian and Chinese criminals, it is done through the custody acts. The research done was divided into the forms of crime, creating a notion that black defendants are likely to be found more guilty of serious crimes.

In the past years of research, the criminal courts have sentenced black crime acts more severely than whites. This creates the analogy that African-American criminals are given more sentences behind bars. It is so severe that the numbers at a time double the whites who have done similar crimes and same criminal instances. This shows the bias that is in the individual judges and crime investigators that make the advances in these sentences. Any reputable crime is judged based on race and ethnic background factors. The law enforcement officers and lawyers have become used to this racist ideology, for example in a Herald-Tribune act that happened where two youths were charged with armed robbery in the same state, the law enforcement officers and the defense lawyers through the support of the judge disregarded the sentencing of the white teenager and created a request contract for trial with no jail time, (The Editorial Board, 2016). In my opinion, this is a bad act by the justice system, and it has to be corrected by the use of the available law enforcement processes.

Law, in action, primarily supports the legal theory that associates with legal factualness, evaluate the duty of the law, not only in just the existence in acts and cases but also in the application to the society. In school, the main focus is on appellate opinions, and the professor sometimes decides to discuss the law in a wide way, for example, focusing on what the losing party might respond to the case. In the Appellate processes that occur in the law in action procedures, they focus on the judgments that can be petitioned, processes that the appeals undergo before being taken to court, the requirement that is needed for reversals that happen in the lower court and the requirements that they are obliged to follow. The appealable matters are mostly limited to concluding judgments. The federal "final judgment rule" provides justices of appeals of final decisions by the district courts to the courts of appeals in majority of the cases but there are exclusions on the final judgment rule, for example, cases where a trial court makes a plain or central mistake, inquiries on whether a provisional court has topic matter influence or legislative issues. There are a few cases that are allowed for oral arguments- when allowed; oral arguments help to clarify legislative matters provided in briefs and given a certain time limit, (Hemmens, Brody, Spohn, 2019).

References

Hemmens, C., Brody, D., & Spohn, C. (2019). Criminal courts: A contemporary perspective, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publishing Company

Oliver Wright. (2013). 'Courts are biased against blacks' with white offenders handed. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/courts-are-biased-against-blacks-with-white-offenders-less-likely-to-be-jailed-for-similar-crimes-8959804.html

The Editorial Board. (2016). Opinion | Unequal Sentences for Blacks and Whites. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html