UNIT I – THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM AND BUSINESS

1. An Introduction To The American Legal System

To a large part, the roots of our legal heritage can be traced to England, although the American legal system also has roots in Spanish and Dutch law. Once a British colony ruled by King George III through his appointed governors, the United States adopted the greatest share of our laws and legal traditions from the English. For all intents, English law began with the Norman invasion of England in 1066. William the Conqueror and his successors established the king’s court (Curia Regis) to help create a unified nation. Before the Norman Conquest, disputes were settled according to local tribal customs. The king’s court began to develop a common or uniform set of customs applicable to the whole population. This evolved into what became known as the common law, so named because it was intended to be common to the entire British kingdom.

As the number of courts and disputes increased, the more important rulings made each year were compiled into Year Books. Judges referred to these Year Books as a source of guidance in settling cases similar to those already decided. If a dispute was unique (called a case of first impression), judges had to create new law, but they attempted to base their decisions on previously established legal principles as much as possible. Today we still rely on this body of judge-made law developed over the centuries. It is called common law or case law in the United States.

The common law was carried to the colonies by the first English settlers and used by courts during the pre-Revolutionary War period. Common law continued to be applied after the Revolution and during the writing of the U.S. Constitution. It is still a valuable source of law, especially in tort, contract, and agency law. States have also codified some parts of the common law, such as the penal code in criminal law, the probate code in estate law, or the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which codifies much of the common law relating to the sale of goods. 

2. The Federal Court System

The federal judicial system was created by the U. S. Constitution in Article III. It is structured in a three-tiered format consisting of trial courts (federal district courts), intermediate courts of appeal (circuit courts of appeal), and the United States Supreme Court. The federal courts have limited jurisdiction, except in diversity cases, meaning they can only hear cases authorized under the federal Constitution and federal statutes. Federal judges are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Federal judges usually hold their positions for life, unless they retire or resign. They can also be removed if they are impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted at trial in the Senate.

Federal magistrate judges do not have lifetime appointment, as they are selected by district judges to assist them with various procedural matters. Article I courts are also federal courts, but they are created by Congress. Article I courts include the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, U.S. Tax Court, Court of Military Commission Review, and United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Article I judges do not share the same protections as Article III judges. They have term limits and their compensation may be reduced.

There are currently 870 authorized federal judges: 9 on the U.S. Supreme Court; 179 U.S. Courts of Appeals judges; 673 U.S. District Court judges; and 9 judges on the Court of International Trade. 

2.1. Federal Trial Courts: U.S. District Courts

The district courts are the trial level in the federal court system and are considered courts of “original jurisdiction.” This means federal cases start in the district court. Each state has at least one federal district court that serves a certain prescribed geographical area, called a district. Currently there are 96 federal district courts. The court has both a “fact-finding” and “law-determining” function. The jury or judge may perform the function of fact-finding; however, the judge always determines the law.

The jurisdiction of a federal district court is either based on diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction exists when a suit arises between (1) citizens of different states; (2) a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country; or (3) a citizen of a state and a foreign country where the plaintiff is the foreign country. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 or the action must be brought in an appropriate state court. Criminal cases are not brought under diversity jurisdiction.

A corporation is considered a citizen of the state of its incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of business. A partnership (general or limited) is a citizen of every state in which an individual partner is a citizen. 

In a diversity case, the federal district court resolves all issues according to the law of the state in which it sits, however, federal procedural rules apply. This is based on the decision handed down by the Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (304 U.S. 64 (1938)). 

Federal question jurisdiction applies when a case arises under the U.S. Constitution or a federal law or a treaty. For example, if a federal bank is robbed (thus, violating a federal statute), or if a U.S. treaty with a foreign nation requires interpretation, the case will be heard in a federal district court.

Federal district courts have sole or exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, such as cases involving federal crimes, antitrust, bankruptcy, patent and copyright cases, suits against the United States, and admiralty cases. State courts are not permitted to hear these cases. In contrast, state courts have jurisdiction over state crimes, state constitutional issues, divorce cases, adoption, wills and estates. Both the federal courts and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over certain matters. When concurrent jurisdiction arises and the plaintiff chooses to have the case heard in a state court, the defendant may remove the case to a federal district court and have it heard or adjudicated there.

2.2. U.S. Courts of Appeals

The U.S. Courts of Appeals are the federal court system’s intermediate appellate courts. There are thirteen circuits in the federal appellate court system. Theses courts perform no fact-finding function; their purpose is to review only the legal conclusions reached by lower federal courts or the procedures used at the trial level. 

The first eleven Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over cases arising in a particular geographical area, called a circuit. For example, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, located in Philadelphia, hears appeals from the federal district courts located in their circuit, namely, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands. The courts at this level also hear appeals from the Tax Court, the Bankruptcy Court, and decisions from several administrative agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board. 

The twelfth court of appeals is located in Washington, D.C., known as the District of Columbia. The thirteenth court of appeals is called the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is also located in Washington, D.C. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears specialized appeals concerning patent and trademark issues and appeals from the Claims Court and the Court of International Trade.

2.3. The U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is the only court explicitly established by the Constitution. It is the highest court in the land and generally serves as an appellate court. Nine justices make up the Supreme Court. As are all federal judges, Supreme Court judges are nominated by the President, must be confirmed by the United States Senate, and serve a life term.

The Supreme Court generally hears appeals from the federal circuit courts of appeals and the highest state courts. At times, a case may be appealed directly from a federal district court to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not accept evidence nor does it hear testimony. It simply reviews the lower court’s record, hears oral arguments and determines whether there has been an error that warrants a reversal or modification of the decision. The Supreme Court’s decision is final.

Appeals to the Supreme Court are not automatic. A request for review of a lower court decision must be made by filing a petition for certiorari. Four of the nine justices must agree to hear an appeal in order to grant certiorari. This is sometimes referred to as the “Rule of Four.” A writ of certiorari is then issued if the Court decides to hear a case. This is an order issued by the Court requiring that the lower court produce the certified record of a case heard in that court.

The Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction in certain cases, meaning that it acts as a trial court. The Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states; over cases involving foreign ambassadors and ministers; controversies between a state and the United States; and cases involving a state and a citizen from another state or an alien. 

3.  State Court Systems

State courts are organized much like the federal court system. They differ in specifics such as number of courts, their names, how individuals become judges, and jurisdiction. At the base of a state’s judicial system are courts of limited jurisdiction. These include municipal courts, justice of the peace courts, landlord-tenant courts, and small claims courts. These courts generally hear minor criminal matters or civil controversies involving small amounts of money. Court proceedings are relatively informal and often no transcript of the testimony and proceedings is kept. The parties to a case frequently represent themselves (called a pro se procedure) and the presiding judicial officer is not required to be an attorney in many states.

State trial courts perform the same functions as courts of limited jurisdiction. However, they handle cases of greater significance and often there is no limit to the dollar amount that may be awarded or the penalties meted out in a criminal case, except those stipulated by state statutes. Also, unlike the inferior courts, a detailed record of the proceedings of a case is kept. A judge or jury may perform the fact-finding duties at this level; however, the judge always determines questions of law.

The state appellate courts review questions of law only. As in the federal court system, no juries are involved in an appeal. Some states have only one level of appellate court, while others have an intermediate level and a supreme court.

4. Civil and Criminal Systems Contrasted

Philosophically, a crime may be considered a wrong committed against society. Federal and state prosecutors, who bring the case against the defendant, or the person committing the wrongdoing, represent society. The respective criminal law applies in these cases. In certain instances, a city or municipality may initiate a criminal action, such as charging a person with theft, assault, public disorderliness, or some other criminal offense. The formal charge is made in the name of the state in which the alleged violation took place. In some cases, “persons” may include corporations and other types of business entities. Crimes are punishable by imprisonment and/or fines, and in some cases, the making of restitution to the victim of a crime.

In general terms, civil law is applied when an injured party, or a plaintiff, brings an action against another party, a defendant, because the defendant did not meet or breached a legal duty owed to the plaintiff. Anyone may be a party to a civil suit—individuals, business entities, and government entities. If the defendant loses a civil case, the plaintiff is usually awarded some form of damages (money, property) or some form of equitable relief.

At times, the same behavior may violate both criminal and civil laws. For example, a car thief may be charged for violating a criminal statute and may also be sued in a civil court by the owner of the car for money damages. 

5. Evidentiary Standards: Quantum and Burden of Proof

In almost every legal proceeding, the parties are required to adhere to important rules known as evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. These rules determine which party is responsible for putting forth enough evidence to either prove or defeat a particular claim [burden of proof] and the amount of evidence necessary to accomplish that goal [quantum of proof].  

5.1. The Burden of Proof

The burden of proof determines which party is responsible for putting forth evidence and the level of evidence they must provide in order to prevail on their claim. In most cases, the plaintiff (the party bringing the claim) has the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the burden of proof begins with the state and never shifts to the defendant to prove their innocence. That is why a defendant in a criminal case can never be forced to take in their own defense.  In connection with this principle are the important protections found for defendants in the Miranda and Gideon cases [“The right to remain silent”; “the right to an attorney”] found on Blackboard.   

The burden of proof has two components. First, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of production, which has also been referred to as the burden of going forward. As the terms suggest, this burden requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of witness testimony, documents, or objects. After the plaintiff presents his or her case-in-chief, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who then has the opportunity to provide evidence either rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence or supporting the defendant’s own arguments.

5.2. Quantum of Proof: Civil Cases

Preponderance of the Evidence

Second, the plaintiff must satisfy the burden of persuasion. This burden determines which standard of proof the plaintiff must follow in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular determination. 

In most civil cases, the burden of persuasion that applies is called “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred. Some scholars define the preponderance of the evidence standard as requiring a finding that at least 51 percent of the evidence favors the plaintiff’s outcome.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

In some civil cases, the burden of proof is elevated to a higher standard called “clear and convincing evidence.” This burden of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Substantial Evidence

In administrative law proceedings, the standard of proof that most commonly applies is the substantial evidence standard. This standard requires the plaintiff or moving party to provide enough evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a particular conclusion.

5.3. Evidentiary Standards in Criminal Cases

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is the highest standard of proof that may be imposed upon a party at trial, and it is usually the standard used in criminal cases. This standard requires the prosecution [the state] to show that the only logical explanation that can be derived from the facts is that the defendant committed the alleged crime, and that no other logical explanation can be inferred or deduced from the evidence. The United States Supreme Court in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994), described this standard as “such doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty, raised in your mind by reasons of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence or lack thereof . . . . What is required is not an absolute or mathematical certainty, but a moral certainty.”

Probable Cause

In the criminal law context, there are a few additional standards that apply in specific circumstances. Another well-known standard is the probable cause standard. This standard focuses on balancing effective law enforcement practices against the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable invasions into citizens’ privacy. In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supreme Court outlined the totality of the circumstances test that applies to determining whether a police officer had probable cause to conduct a search and seizure, and for magistrate judges to use when issuing warrants. The standard requires police officers and judges “to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”

Reasonable Belief and Reasonable Suspicion

Other standards used to evaluate evidence in the criminal context include reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion. Any police actions that are subject to these standards of proof must be based on grounds that are reasonable in light of the circumstances. Stated differently, a reasonable suspicion occurs when a police officer “observe[s] unusual conduct which lead him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing with may be armed and dangerous . . . .” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Credible Evidence

Another common standard of proof used in some criminal law proceedings is the credible evidence standard. Credible evidence is evidence that is not necessarily true but that is worthy of belief and worthy of the jury’s consideration. Some have defined this standard as requiring the jury to conclude that the evidence is natural, reasonable, and probable in order for it to be credible.

6. Who Must Testify? 

As a general rule, everyone must be give testimony in a court of law when called to do so. This is subject to the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self incrimination and certain other “personal privileges” because of important relationships recognized by Federal courts. These privileges include: husband-wife; doctor-patient; priest-penitent; and lawyer-client—but not for an accountant and client or a reporter and source (unless recognized in an individual state).  

CASE STUDY

Gideon v. Wainwright

Established the right of persons to be represented by counsel in non-petty offenses

372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Argued: January 15, 1963, Decided: March 18, 1963

Syllabus: 

Charged in a Florida State Court with a noncapital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Petitioner conducted his own defense about as well as could be expected of a layman, but he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Subsequently, he applied to the State Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied all relief.

Held:

The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner’s trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, overruled. 

CASE STUDY

Miranda v. Arizona

Established protections for those in police custody, subject to questioning by the police

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Argued: February 28-March 1, 1966, Decided: June 13, 1966 

Syllabus: 

In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted, and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal.

Held: 

1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. 

(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. 

(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the “right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will,” during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. 

(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. 

(d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. 

(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. 

(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. 

(g) Where the individual answers some questions during in-custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege, and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. 

(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant. 

2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual’s constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions. 

3. In each of these cases, the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. 

CASE STUDY

IN THE MATTER OF MYRON FARBER AND THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. MARIO E. JASCALEVICH, DEFENDANT

A-78/79/80

Supreme Court of New Jersey

78 N.J. 259; 394 A.2d 330; 1978 N.J. LEXIS 248; 99 A.L.R.3d 1; 4 Media L. Rep. 1360

September 5, 1978, Argued
September 21, 1978, Decided 

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] On certification to the Superior Court, Law Division (A-78/79). On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division (A-80). 

CASE SUMMARY 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants challenged a determination of the Superior Court, Appellate Division (New Jersey), that they were in contempt of court for failure to disclose information sought by subpoenas duces tecum by appellee State of New Jersey in a criminal case.

OVERVIEW: Appellants, a reporter and a news organization, were charged with contempt of court for failure to disclose information sought by subpoenas duces tecum by appellee State of New Jersey in a criminal case. Appellants contended they had a privilege to remain silent with respect to confidential information that emanated from the “free speech” and “free press” clauses of the U.S. Const. amend. I. The court on appeal held that the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a similar claim and held that no such right existed. Appellants also argued that a shield law, N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2A:84A-21 and 21a applied. The court found the law constitutional on its face, but held that it violated the U.S. Const. amend. VI and the N.J. Const. art. 1, para. 10, as applied to the facts of the case, by denying a criminal defendant the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed that appellants were in contempt of court because the state constitutional guarantee of a criminal defendant’s right to confront witnesses prevailed over the state statute granting privilege to newspersons regarding their sources of confidential information.

7.  Sources of Law 

7.1. Common Law and the Doctrine of Stare Decisis

Common law is judge made law, found in the opinions of judges and reported in cases. The common law brings great stability and predictability to a legal system. In cases governed by the common law, courts follow the doctrine of stare decisis. Stare decisis literally means, “to adhere to decided cases” and holds that similar cases should be decided in a similar manner and should yield a similar result. Precedent is the legal decision or holdings from a prior case that courts use to determine the outcome of a similar case or a similar question of law. If a court determines that the facts in the precedent case are not the same as those in the case before it and, therefore, should not control the ruling, the court may distinguish the current case from the precedent. Courts also can, but rarely do, overrule their prior decisions. Courts strive to avoid overruling earlier cases because it upsets the principle of stare decisis and the reliance people place on settled law in planning business and personal affairs.

Here are two classic cases which demonstrate the circumstances where the Supreme Court might overrule an earlier precedent.  Might the same result occur in the future regarding Roe v. Wade?

CASE STUDY

PLESSY v. FERGUSON

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

163 U.S. 537; 16 S. Ct. 1138; 41 L. Ed. 256; 1896 U.S. LEXIS 3390

Argued April 13, 1896.
May 18, 1896 

PRIOR HISTORY: ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. 

THIS was a petition for writs of prohibition and certiorari, originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State by Plessy, the plaintiff in error, against the Hon. John H. Ferguson, judge of the criminal District Court for the parish of Orleans, and setting forth in substance the following facts: 

That petitioner was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Louisiana, of mixed descent, in the proportion of seven eighths Caucasian and one eighth African blood; that the mixture of colored blood was not discernible in him, and that he was entitled to every recognition, right, privilege and immunity secured to the citizens of the United States of the white race by its Constitution and laws; that on June 7, 1892, he engaged and paid for a first class passage on the East Louisiana Railway from New Orleans to Covington, in the same State, and thereupon entered a passenger train, and took possession of a vacant seat in a coach where passengers of the white race were accommodated; that such railroad company was incorporated by the laws of Louisiana as a common carrier, and was not authorized to distinguish between citizens according to their race. But, notwithstanding this, petitioner was required by the conductor, under penalty of ejection from said train and imprisonment, to vacate said coach and occupy another seat in a coach assigned by said company for persons not of the white race, and for no other reason than that petitioner was of the colored race; that upon petitioner’s refusal to comply with such order, he was, with the aid of a police officer, forcibly ejected from said coach and hurried off to and imprisoned in the parish jail of New Orleans, and there held to answer a charge made by such officer to the effect that he was guilty of having criminally violated an act of the General Assembly of the State, approved July 10, 1890, in such case made and provided. 

That petitioner was subsequently brought before the recorder of the city for preliminary examination and committed for trial to the criminal District Court for the parish of Orleans, where an information was filed against him in the matter above set forth, for a violation of the above act, which act the petitioner affirmed to be null and void, because in conflict with the Constitution of the United States; that petitioner interposed a plea to such information, based upon the unconstitutionality of the act of the General Assembly, to which the district attorney, on behalf of the State, filed a demurrer; that, upon issue being joined upon such demurrer and plea, the court sustained the demurrer, overruled the plea, and ordered petitioner to plead over to the facts set forth in the information, and that, unless the judge of the said court be enjoined by a writ of prohibition from further proceeding in such case, the court will proceed to fine and sentence petitioner to imprisonment, and thus deprive him of his constitutional rights set forth in his said plea, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the act under which he was being prosecuted; that no appeal lay from such sentence, and petitioner was without relief or remedy except by writs of prohibition and certiorari. Copies of the information and other proceedings in the criminal District Court were annexed to the petition as an exhibit. 

Upon the filing of this petition, an order was issued upon the respondent to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue and be made perpetual, and a further order that the record of the proceedings had in the criminal cause be certified and transmitted to the Supreme Court. 

To this order the respondent made answer, transmitting a certified copy of the proceedings, asserting the constitutionality of the law, and averring that, instead of pleading or admitting that he belonged to the colored race, the said Plessy declined and refused, either by pleading or otherwise, to admit that he was in any sense or in any proportion a colored man. 

The case coming on for a hearing before the Supreme Court, that court was of opinion that the law under which the prosecution was had was constitutional, and denied the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Ex parte Plessy, 45 La. Ann. 80. Whereupon petitioner prayed for a writ of error from this court which was allowed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. 

OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. HOLDING:

1. The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude, is not violated by a state statute requiring separate accommodations for white and colored persons on railroads.

2. A state statute providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races by railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in the state, and the assignment of passengers to the coaches according to their race by conductors does not deprive a colored person of any rights under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

3. No question of interference with interstate commerce arises under such statute, in a case where the railway company enforcing it is a purely local line, with both its termini within the state.

4. A law which requires the separation of the white and colored races in public conveyances is a reasonable exercise of the police power of a state.

5. Whether the 2d section of such statute, denying to the passenger compensation in damages for a refusal to receive him into the coach in which he properly belongs, is a valid exercise of the legislative power, this court does not decide.

CASE STUDY

BROWN ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL.

No. 1 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

347 U.S. 483; 74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180

December 9, 1952, Argued
May 17, 1954, Decided 

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reargued December 8, 1953.
DISPOSITION: The Court overturned (overruled) Plessy v. Ferguson and the “separate but equal” doctrine, finding that it had no place in public education. Segregation was a denial of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. Separate educational facilities were inherently unequal.
CASE SUMMARY 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff African-American minors challenged the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas that, although it held that segregation in public education had a detrimental effect upon African-American children, denied relief on the ground that the schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers.

OVERVIEW: By consolidated opinion, the Court reviewed four state cases in which African-American minors sought admission to the public schools of their community on a non-segregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by Caucasian children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the minors of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each case, except the Delaware case, the district court denied relief to the minors on the “separate but equal” doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. The minors contended that the public schools were not equal and could not be made equal, thereby denying them equal protection of the law. The common legal question among the cases was whether Plessy should be held inapplicable to public education and whether segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors were equal, deprived the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities. The Court held in the affirmative as to both.

OUTCOME: The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and the “separate but equal” doctrine, finding that it had no place in public education. Segregation was a denial of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. Separate educational facilities were inherently unequal.

SUMMARY: In each of the four cases involved the plaintiffs, Negro children, were denied admission to state public schools attended by white children under state laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. There were findings below that the Negro and white schools involved had been equalized, or were being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other tangible factors.

In an opinion by Warren, Ch. J., the Supreme Court unanimously held that the plaintiffs, by reason of the segregation complained of, were deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The “separate but equal” doctrine announced in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537, 41 L Ed 256, 16 S Ct 1138, involving equality in transportation facilities, under which equality of treatment is accorded by providing Negroes and whites substantially equal, though separate, facilities, was held to have no place in the field of public education.

In view of the complex problems presented by the formulation of the decrees, the cases were restored to the docket for argument by the parties. 

SYLLABUS

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment — even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors of white and Negro schools may be equal. 

(a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education. 

(b) The question presented in these cases must be determined, not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the full development of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. 

(c) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. 

(d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal. 

(e) The “separate but equal” doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, has no place in the field of public education. 

(f) The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees. 

7.2. Statutory Law

Statutes are written laws enacted by Congress or a state legislature for the purpose of declaring, ordering, or prohibiting something. Counties, cities, and towns may enact laws, as well. These “local laws” are generally called ordinances. Neither statutes nor ordinances can violate the U.S. Constitution or the applicable state constitution. 

State statutory law varies throughout the country, partly because of cultural and geographical differences, and partly because of diverging needs. For example, eight western states enacted marital property statutes, called community property laws, originally derived from the Spanish legal system that originated in Mexico. Louisiana has laws that originated under the Napoleonic Code, because the French initially settled that area and brought with them their system of law. New York has adopted aspects of Dutch property law as it relates to condominium and co-op ownership.

As you read various federal statutes, you will begin to understand the difficulty in interpreting and applying them. A large portion of the work that modern courts do consists of interpreting what the legislators meant when they passed a law and applying that understanding or meaning to the current circumstances. In this task, a court may be guided by consulting the legislative history of any law, in order to ascertain the intention of the writers of any statute.

7.3. Administrative Law

Congress or a state legislature will oftentimes enact a statute using general language leaving it up to the appropriate administrative agency to create more detailed rules.  Federal and state regulatory agencies (for example, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Trade Commission) promulgate their own “rules and regulations” to implement the statutes enacted by the legislatures.  These regulations generally have the same impact as a statute, and therefore are often termed administrative laws.    

Administrative Agencies

As the United States became industrialized in the latter half of the 19th century, the need arose to create divisions of government that could handle the ever-complex situations that evolved. Congress and state legislatures began to establish administrative agencies. The duties that Congress could not perform in regulating certain activities because of the lack of time and specialized knowledge were delegated to these agencies.  

To date, Congress and the executive branch have created over 100 administrative agencies to make, interpret, and enforce laws. These agencies provide a forum where complex issues and disputes can be adjudicated with efficiency, expertise, and fairness. Administrative agencies are authorities in their particular areas of law. Their expertise is critical given the complexities of the law and the complexities of the areas of business the laws seek to regulate.

Administrative agencies exist at every level of the government, and they derive their power from the particular branch of the government that created them. For example, Congress creates federal agencies, state legislatures create state agencies, and city councils create their cities’ administrative agencies. An example of a federal agency is the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is authorized to enforce the federal securities laws that apply to issuers and persons who trade in securities. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is an example of a state agency. It regulates air and water quality, wetlands, solid and hazardous waste management, parks and forestry, fish and wildlife. An example of local agency is the Business Integrity Commission of New York City. This agency regulates the trade waste industry, shipboard gambling industry, Fulton Fish Market distribution area and other seafood distribution areas, and public wholesale markets. 

Legislative supervision over agencies may be minimal; however, administrative agencies are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which requires agencies to follow uniform procedures in making rules and establishes basic notice and hearing requirements, which are collectively known as “due process” rights.

While the vast majority of administrative actions are processed informally, certain administrative agencies have been assigned quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate cases through an administrative proceeding. These proceedings are not identical to court trials; however, the agency must comply with the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the individual or business must be given adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and fair trial procedures must be utilized in making administrative determinations. Administrative actions may also be challenged by claiming that an agency has acted ultra vires, that is, beyond the scope of their own power and authority.

Administrative law judges (ALJs) preside over administrative proceedings. There is no jury. Counsel may represent the administrative agency and the respondent and may call witnesses and introduce evidence. Upon hearing the case, the ALJ will render a decision in the form of an order that will state “the findings of fact and the conclusions of law” upon which the decision is based. The order becomes final if it is not appealed. If either party is dissatisfied with the decision, it may seek an appeal that consists of a review by the agency or perhaps by a court. In some cases, a successful appeal will result in a completely new or “de novo” hearing on the merits of the case. In other cases, the scope of appellate review is limited. A court will defer to the findings of the ALJ and only decide whether those findings could reasonably have been reached on sufficient or substantial credible evidence present in the record. 

7.4. Commercial Law

A subset of civil law is commercial law; another is tort law. The area of law pertaining to commercial dealings is called commercial or business law. It includes aspects of contract law, sales, corporation law, agency, partnerships, leasing or bailments, property law, and other subjects.

7.5. Uniform Laws

Since each state is a sovereign, with a different set of laws, the differences created issues for commerce between the states. Beginning in the late 18th century, a group of legal scholars formed the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and began meeting to draft uniform statutes. State legislatures were encouraged to adopt the uniform law. In addition to the NCCUSL the American Law Institute [ALI], founded in 1923, has also developed a number of comprehensive codes of law. Each state may adopt all or part (or none, for that matter) of a uniform law. Therefore, the law on any particular subject is not “uniform” throughout the country.    

Examples of uniform laws include the Model Business Corporation Act, the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, the Uniform Arbitration Act, and the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act. A number of other uniform laws have been written as well. Students of business law become familiar with the Uniform Commercial Code or “UCC,” one of the most important legal codes.

7.6. The Uniform Commercial Code

The UCC is a unified body of statutes governing nearly all commercial transactions. Nevertheless, the interpretations of the UCC are found in case law, or the reported decisions of the courts. By providing uniformity and stability among the states, the UCC encourages the advancement of business and assures businesspeople that their legal contracts will be carried out and enforced by the courts.

The UCC did not result in drastic changes in the basic principles of commercial law. There are, however, important differences from the common law. While the common law was guided, to a large extent, by the principle of caveat emptor or “let the buyer beware,” the UCC envisions a different role of a merchant in commercial transactions. Merchants are held to a very high standard of performance and must act to act in good faith within the commercial sphere.  UCC § 2-103 defines good faith as “honesty in fact” and the “observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade.” This is a far cry from caveat emptor! 

The UCC defines and explains important and sometimes commonly misunderstood legal and business terms, thus assisting parties in the drafting of contracts and aiding courts in their interpretation and enforcement. For example, courts may rule that certain contracts or terms within a contract are unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. The case law governing contracts in one state has persuasive value in courts of other states because adoption of the UCC results in “uniformity.”

All fifty states have adopted the UCC, as well as, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Louisiana was the last state to adopt the UCC. Why do you think Louisiana was so late in adopting the UCC?

8. Analyzing a Civil Law Suit (See Steps in a Civil Case, posted on Blackboard)

8.1. The Pleadings

Pleadings are the papers or documents filed with the court to institute and respond to a lawsuit. To initiate a lawsuit, a litigant files a complaint with the clerk of the appropriate court. This formal document states the litigant’s (the plaintiff) claim against the opposing party (the defendant) and includes sufficient facts to show that some legal remedy is appropriate to right the harm done.

The defendant is served with process, usually in the form of a writ, notice, summons, or the actual complaint. Service puts the defendant on notice that an action is pending against him or her, and that he or she is subject to the particular court’s jurisdiction.

The defendant must respond to the plaintiff’s complaint by filing an answer within a specified period of time. The defendant, through his or her answer, either admits or denies the plaintiff’s allegations or states that the he or she lacks the information needed to evaluate the truth or veracity of the plaintiff’s allegations. This amounts to a denial of the allegations found in the complaint.

The answer may also include affirmative defenses to the claim asserted in the complaint. An affirmative defense is a rule of law enabling the defendant to prevail in the case even though all of the plaintiff’s allegations are true. For example, if a plaintiff sues a defendant after the time within which to bring the action has expired, the defendant may raise this point as an affirmative defense and ask the court to have the case dismissed.

At times, the answer may include a counterclaim. This is a separate claim being asserted by the defendant against the plaintiff that arises from the same facts as stated in the complaint. A counterclaim is the defendant’s means for obtaining legal relief; it is not merely a defense to the plaintiff’s claim.

If the defendant fails to file an answer to the complaint, a default judgment may be entered against him or her. The default judgment establishes the defendant’s liability; however, the plaintiff still must prove damages.

Some jurisdictions allow or require the plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s affirmative defenses or counterclaim by means of a reply. It is a point-by-point response to the elements introduced in the defendant’s affirmative defense or counterclaim. If the particular jurisdiction does not allow a reply to an affirmative defense, the defendant’s new assertions are automatically denied. However, a plaintiff who wishes to contest a counterclaim must file a reply.

Purpose of the Pleadings

Historically, pleadings defined and limited the questions to be decided at the trial stage. Issues raised in the pleadings were considered part of the case; all others were excluded from further consideration. On rare occasions, amendments, changes, or additions to the pleadings were permitted. Once the litigants admitted to allegations they were bound by their admissions. Allegations that were denied would be included in the dispute between the parties. This stage of the case also included several technical pleading rules that, if violated, could jeopardize a party’s chances of winning a suit. 

Some jurisdictions continue in this tradition. Others have used this stage to provide notice to each litigant of the claims being asserted by the other litigant(s). Additionally, these jurisdictions are more inclined to decide cases on the merits rather than on the technical defects of the pleadings. In these jurisdictions, amendments to the pleadings may be allowed at the discretion of the judge. In addition, they may be used to introduce issues to be considered at trial that were not initially raised in the pleadings.

8.2. Motions

Once the pleadings have been filed and reviewed, it may be evident that the plaintiff has no case. In such a situation, pursuing the litigation would be a waste of the court’s limited time and resources. The procedure for disposing of the case at this point is a motion to dismiss. It may be made after the plaintiff has filed the complaint. A similar procedure is used to dismiss a case after the pleadings are completed. This is a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Motions for dismissal may be made in order to attack inadequate service of process or a particular court’s lack of jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter, or both. However, the most important type of motion to dismiss is a demurrer. This motion is used to assert that the plaintiff has “failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In other words, even if every allegation made in the plaintiff’s complaint were true, the plaintiff could not recover because no rule of law exists entitling him to win on those facts.

8.3. Discovery

Discovery is the process used to exchange relevant information between the litigants. Its purpose is to aid the litigants in preparing their arguments and to narrow and clarify the issues to be decided at trial. The costs of obtaining discovery can be substantial and the time period extensive depending on the extent to which the litigants carry out the process. 

Written questions called interrogatories may be directed to each party and the parties are legally bound to answer them. Further, a deposition may be taken whereby the parties in the case and/or witnesses are questioned under oath before a court reporter. Other forms of discovery include requests for documents and other evidence such as the litigants’ files and records; mental and physical examinations; and requests for admissions, which are one litigant’s written demand that the other party agree to admit or deny certain statements of fact or law. Failure to comply with discovery procedures can result in the imposition of sanctions against a litigant or his or her attorney. 

8.4. Summary Judgment

Once the discovery process is completed, it is common for one party to make a motion to the court for a summary judgment. If the party making the motion prevails, the case will not go to trial. In order to succeed, the movant must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon the information garnered from discovery.

8.5. Pre-Trial Conference

The participants in the pre-trial conference include the parties, the judge, and the attorneys. Pre-trial conferences may or may not be mandatory and are scheduled at the trial judge’s discretion. The parties in attendance discuss the issues that will be tried, the length of the trial, and the possibility of settlement. If the case cannot be settled, the judge enters a pre-trial order including any stipulations and other matters that are the subject of an agreement. Typically, the terms of the pre-trial order bind the parties throughout the rest of the case.

8.6. The Trial

A trial may be held with or without a jury. Generally, the jury is the trier of fact, meaning that the jury determines the facts alleged in the case and evaluates the veracity or credibility of any witnesses called at trial. The judge on the other hand acts as the trier of law. If neither party requests a trial by jury, the judge will assume both roles as trier of fact and the trier of law. Note, the jury can never make findings of law.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial for cases at law in federal courts if the amount in controversy exceeds $20. Most states have similar guarantees in their own state constitutions but impose a higher minimum dollar amount. In a civil case, however, a party must affirmatively request (demand) a jury trial. If neither party to a lawsuit affirmatively requests a trial by jury, it is presumed to be waived.

In most civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the greater weight of evidence must favor the plaintiff. To sustain that burden of proof, the plaintiff must convince the judge or jury that the facts probably bear out what the plaintiff alleges. In some types of civil cases, a slightly higher quantum of proof, called clear and convincing evidence, may be required. In criminal cases, guilt must be proved by a standard called “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Trial Proceedings

Each trial begins with the attorney for the plaintiff making an opening statement outlining the facts that he or she expects to prove during the trial. The defendant’s attorney may make his or her opening statement at this point or may reserve the right to make it until after the plaintiff presents his or her case-in-chief.

Presenting the Plaintiff’s Case

After the opening statement(s), the plaintiff calls his or her first witness for examination (questioning). This is the direct examination. The defendant’s attorney is then permitted to cross-examine this witness. If the defense attorney cross-examines the witness, the plaintiff’s attorney has another opportunity of question the same witness. This is redirect examination. The defense attorney may then follow with re-cross-examination. This process continues with each witness.

Directed Verdict

After the plaintiff calls all of his or her witnesses, the defendant’s attorney is permitted to ask the judge to direct a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff has presented no evidence that would justify the granting of the plaintiff’s remedy. This is called a motion for a directed verdict. The defendant makes an assertion that, even upon reading the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the case must be resolved in favor of the defendant as a matter of law. Motions for a directed verdict are seldom granted at this stage of the trial.

The Defense

If the motion for directed verdict in favor of the defendant is not granted, the defendant’s attorney presents their evidence and witnesses. When the defendant rests, either attorney may again move for a directed verdict. If not granted, the plaintiff is allowed to present a rebuttal. This may include additional evidence to refute the defense’s case. The defendant can rebut this evidence in a rejoinder.

Closing Arguments

Once all the evidence is presented, each party’s attorney delivers a closing argument. The plaintiff goes first. Each attorney urges a verdict in favor of his or her respective client. The judge then instructs the jury (if a jury is hearing the case) in the law that applies to the case. These are often called charges to the jury. In a criminal case, the state may offer a rebuttal argument since the state bears the burden of proof in a criminal case.

8.7. Verdicts

The jury then begins its deliberations in an effort to reach a verdict. The jury’s deliberations may result in one of several outcomes. It may issue a general verdict. In this case, the jury declares which party prevailed and the relief or remedy (if any) to be awarded. A general verdict gives the jury the freedom to ignore the judge’s charge or instructions and follow its own inclinations because it does not have to state its factual findings or its application of the law to those findings.

Alternatively, and at the discretion of the trial judge, a special verdict may be rendered. In this situation, the jury makes specific findings of fact; essentially it answers questions submitted to it by the court. Based on its answers, the judge determines which party is entitled to obtain a judgment by applying the law to the jury’s findings.

Once the jury has reached its verdict, on rare occasions, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (in Latin, non obstante veredicto) may be granted. The party against whom the verdict was rendered moves for a judgment in his or her favor because, based on the weight of evidence, the party receiving the judgment should not have prevailed, again as a matter of law. Unless the jury was clearly lax in the performance of its duties, a court will not grant a Judgment N.O.V. 

8.8. Motion for a New Trial

If the losing party does not accept the judgment rendered, it may make a motion for a new trial. Such a motion will be granted if the judge recognizes that an error of law occurred during the trial, if misconduct by the jury or attorney was evident or has come to light, if new evidence was found, or if the plaintiff was awarded excessive damages. A court may also hear motions to increase (additur) or decrease (remittitur) damages. A motion for additur will not be entertained in a federal case due to constitutional grounds.

8.9. Appeals

A losing party may decide to appeal the decision of the trial court. The prevailing party at trial also may appeal if the award is not as much as was expected. The party making the appeal is called the appellant. The other party is called the appellee. In some cases, the party appealing is called the petitioner, and the other party called the respondent. 

An appeal is not a second trial. Therefore, no jury is used in appellate procedures. The judges of the appellate court (usually in three-judge panels) read the written record of the lower court’s proceedings. Oral arguments may be scheduled and the parties submit written briefs or arguments to the court. Appellate courts make their determination as a matter of law whether or not there was error made in the trial.

Appealable matters include the trial judge’s decisions on the pleadings or motion to dismiss, on admissibility of evidence, on granting or rejecting a motion for summary judgment, directed verdict, judgment n.o.v., or on a motion for a new trial. Further, a party may make an appeal based on the trial court’s rulings on service of process; its legal findings in a nonjury trial; its instructions to the jury in a jury trial; and, the damages or equitable relief awarded.

The appellate court has several options at its disposal. It may affirm the ruling of the lower court, reverse the lower court’s decision, or affirm one part of the decision and reverse another part of it. If the appellate court does not agree with the application of the law made by the lower court, it may set aside or modify the action of the lower court and enter a judgment that the lower court should have entered. It may set aside the action of the lower court and send the case back (remand) with directions to hold a new trial or enter a new judgment in accordance with the opinion rendered by the appellate court. 

8.10. Enforcement of Judgments

It is one thing for a plaintiff to be awarded a favorable judgment and another to collect on that judgment. If the losing party fails to comply with the award of a judgment of monetary damages, the prevailing party has to obtain a writ of execution that enables the sheriff to seize certain property in order to satisfy the judgment. The judgment may be satisfied by garnishment of the losing party’s salary, wages, or other funds held by a third party. If the successful party is awarded an equitable remedy such as an injunction or the award of specific performance and the losing party fails to obey the order, he or she may be held in contempt of court and punished by fine and/or imprisonment.

9. Law and Equity Contrasted

Equity is that body of law that carries out justice when the law (or courts of law) itself fails to provide a fair or adequate remedy or no remedy at all. Equity originated in medieval England. During this period, the existing common law rules were highly technical and rigid. The remedies available in the common law courts were scarce. As a result, a prevailing party might not be able to obtain adequate relief in many courts. To rectify this problem, the chancellor, the king’s highest-ranking advisor, heard cases that could not be settled satisfactorily. The Court of Chancery, an offshoot of the Curia Regis, was the court of the king’s chancellor. The most famous chancellor in British history was perhaps Sir Thomas More.

The American colonies adopted the principles of equity along with the common law. Eventually, law and equity became merged, so that today, the majority of states have eliminated separate equity (chancery) and law courts. The same court handles both types of claims. Further, courts may award both monetary damages (“a remedy in law”) and an equitable remedy in specific cases.

Actions at law and suits in equity resolve issues using different procedures. In actions at law, disputes are generally resolved by the application of statutes and previously decided cases. Suits in equity are decided by principles of fairness and equity.

Examples of equitable principles include the doctrines of laches and the “Clean Hands” doctrine. Laches is the product of the maxim that “equity aids the vigilant and not those that slumber on their rights.” This means that if one neglects or omits to do what one should do in a timely fashion it is presumed that he has abandoned his right or claim. The “Clean Hands” doctrine means that the court will not provide an equitable remedy to one who has violated conscience or good faith or other equitable principles. Simply stated, it means that “he who seeks equity must do equity.” 

Equitable decisions are called decrees. Unlike legal relief, which involves awards of money or something else of value, equity decrees order a party to do or refrain from doing something. For example, the remedy may come in the form of an injunction—either temporary or permanent—prohibiting one party from doing an act or commanding a party to perform an act. Another type of equitable relief is that of specific performance, where the losing party is ordered to perform the contractual promise he or she made. It is imposed when monetary damages are inadequate. For example, Ross offers to buy Joan’s building for his motorcycle shop and Joan accepts. Joan later changes her mind and decides to keep the property. Since real estate is considered to be unique, and there is no other piece of property or building exactly like Joan’s, a court may order specific performance on the contract. Joan would be compelled to go through with the sale. 

Additional equitable remedies include rescission (canceling a contract, thereby putting the parties to the contract in the same position they were in before the contract was formed), restitution (returning property or money to a party), and reformation (where the court of equity will rewrite all or part of a contract to reflect the parties’ actual intentions).

10. THE AMERICAN JURY SYSTEM

10.1. Jury Selection

The selection of the jury in a trial is extremely important to the litigants. A panel of possible jurors is selected at random from the citizens residing within the court’s venue. The jury pool may be constituted in a variety of ways depending on the jurisdiction. The selection process of an individual jury is called the “voir dire,” a French term meaning “to speak the truth.” Depending on the state or court procedures, the judge, attorneys, or both, may question potential jurors to find out whether or not they can decide the case without bias or prejudice.

A potential juror may be removed “for cause” if the attorney, after questioning, believes the potential juror could not be unbiased. Attorneys have an unlimited number of challenges for dismissing potential jurors for cause. Attorneys may also eliminate potential jurors without providing any reason for doing so. These peremptory challenges are very limited in number. Peremptory challenges are allowed because the judicial system recognizes that to a limited extent, an attorney’s instinctual feelings play a part in the jury selection process. Today, potential jurors may not be eliminated from participating on juries solely because of race or gender. The jury selection process is an evolving one in the legal system.

10.2. Petit Jury

The petit (meaning small) jury is selected to hear the proceedings of the trial. It usually is made up of six to twelve individuals, again depending on the procedures used in an individual jurisdiction. A petit jury may hear either civil or criminal cases.

10.3 Grand Jury

A grand jury is so named because it is comprised of more jurors than a petit jury. A federal grand jury must have at least sixteen but not more than 23 persons. A grand jury is used only in criminal cases. Its purpose is to determine, after hearing the state’s evidence, whether probable cause exists for supposing that a crime has been committed and whether a trial should be held. If the grand jury finds probable cause, it returns a bill of indictment. If it does not find probable cause, it returns a “no bill.” 

11. Statute of Limitations

A Statute of Limitations bars a claim after a certain period of time passes after an injury.  The period of time varies depending on the jurisdiction and the type of claim.  

Statutes of limitations exist for both civil and criminal causes of action. In the case of a civil case, the Statute of Limitations begins to run from the date of the injury, or the date it was discovered, or the date on which it would have been discovered with reasonable efforts.  Many statutes of limitations are actual legislative statutes, while others may come from judicial common law.

Time Limits for Charges: State Criminal Statutes of Limitations

In criminal law, a statute of limitations is a law that forbids prosecutors from charging someone with a crime that was committed more than a specified number of years ago. The main purpose of these laws is to ensure that convictions are based upon evidence (physical or eyewitness) that has not deteriorated with time. After the time period has run, the crime can no longer be prosecuted, meaning that the accused person is essentially free. Each state establishes its own statutes of limitations, often with different time limits for distinct types of crime.

State Criminal Statutes of Limitations and “Tolling”

Generally speaking, the prosecutor’s “clock” ticks only if the criminal suspect remains in the state. If the individual flees or goes into hiding, the clock will pause (in legal jargon “toll”) and will resume running when and if the suspected person reenters the state. This is to prevent criminals from avoiding the consequences of their crimes by simply running, hiding and waiting out the authorities. Other circumstances may justify tolling, too, such as concealment of the wrongdoing.

Categories of Crimes

Not all crimes are governed by statutes of limitations. Murder, for example, has none, meaning that a murderer can be brought to justice even many decades later. Some states also have no time limits for certain other types of crime, such as sex offenses or terrorism charges. Colorado has no statute of limitations on treason. California has none on the embezzlement of public funds.

Some states classify their crimes in categories for these purposes. In Indiana, for example, Level 3 felonies have a five-year statute of limitations. This makes it necessary to look up which crimes are considered Level 3.

12. Venue

Venue determines which particular trial court is the appropriate one in which a case will be heard. Venue should not be confused with subject matter jurisdiction. State statutes prescribe what the proper venue is for a case. Venue is usually a matter of geographic location, based on the defendant’s place of residence, the location of the property if that property is the subject of the dispute, or the place in which the incident occurred that is the subject of the dispute. If multiple defendants reside in various geographical locations, the plaintiff may usually select the venue from any of these locations. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, if the location of a trial is inconvenient to a party, he or she may file a request with the court to move the case from that court. The judge then decides whether to move the case to a different location after a hearing on the motion. The famous Bhopal case, dealing with a major accident at the Union Carbide pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, involved the international application of the forum non conveniens principle. In that case, 145 lawsuits were consolidated in one action before the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The court, however, granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the suits on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The court ruled the case would be better handled in India. The decision was upheld by the Second Circuit.

CASE STUDY

SHEPPARD v. MAXWELL, WARDEN

No. 490 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

384 U.S. 333; 86 S. Ct. 1507; 16 L. Ed. 2d 600; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1413; 6 Ohio Misc. 231; 35 Ohio Op. 2d 431; 1 Media L. Rep. 1220

February 28, 1966, Argued
June 6, 1966, Decided 

PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

DISPOSITION:346 F.2d 707, reversed and remanded.
CASE SUMMARY 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner, who sought a writ of habeas corpus, appealed a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reversed a federal district court’s decision holding that petitioner, who had been convicted in a state court of second degree murder, was not afforded a fair trial and which granted the writ subject to the State’s right to put petitioner to trial again. The court granted certiorari.

OVERVIEW: Petitioner contended that he was denied a fair trial in his state conviction for the second-degree murder of his wife because of the state trial court’s failure to protect him sufficiently from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. The court concluded that petitioner did not receive a fair trial consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the court could not say that petitioner was denied due process by the trial judge’s refusal to take precautions against the influence of pretrial publicity alone, the trial judge’s later rulings had to be considered against the setting in which the trial was held. In light of this background, the court believed that the arrangements made by the trial court with the news media caused petitioner to be deprived of that judicial serenity and calm to which he was entitled. There was no doubt that the deluge of publicity reached at least some of the jury. The trial court did not fulfill his duty to protect petitioner from the inherently prejudicial publicity that saturated the community and to control disruptive influences in the courtroom.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the denial of petitioner’s habeas petition. The case was remanded to the federal district court with instructions to issue the writ and order that petitioner be released from custody unless the State put him to its charges again within a reasonable time.

Due process requires that the accused receive a trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences. Given the pervasiveness of modern communications and the difficulty of effacing prejudicial publicity from the minds of the jurors, the trial courts must take strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused. And appellate tribunals have the duty to make an independent evaluation of the circumstances. Of course, there is nothing that proscribes the press from reporting events that transpire in the courtroom. But where there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the case until the threat abates, or transfer it to another county not so permeated with publicity. In addition, sequestration of the jury is something the judge should raise sua sponte with counsel. If publicity during the proceedings threatens the fairness of the trial, a new trial should be ordered. Reversals are but palliatives; the cure lies in those remedial measures that will prevent the prejudice at its inception.

SUMMARY: The petitioner, accused of murdering his wife, was tried before a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Both before and during the trial, which began 2 weeks before an election in which the trial judge and the chief prosecutor were candidates for judgeships, the petitioner was the subject of extensive newspaper, radio, and television publicity. The publicity included many matters unfavorable to the defendant which were never presented in court. The trial judge denied various requests by defense counsel for a continuance, change of venue, mistrial, and interrogation of the jurors as to their exposure to the publicity. During the trial, which lasted 9 weeks, reporters were seated at a press table inside the bar, a few feet from the jury box; the corridors, the rooms throughout the courthouse, and most of the seats in the courtroom were filled with representatives of the news media; newsmen handled and photographed trial exhibits lying on the counsel table; radio broadcasting was done from a room next to the room where the jury recessed and deliberated; courtroom proceedings which were supposed to be private were overheard and reported by the press; and the noise of newsmen moving in and out of the courtroom made it difficult for counsel and witnesses to be heard. Before trial, the names and addresses of the jurors were published, and they received letters and phone calls concerning the case. During the jurors’ deliberation at the end of the trial, they were permitted to make phone calls. Prospective witnesses were interviewed by the news media, which in many instances disclosed their testimony, and the full verbatim testimony of witnesses who had testified was available in the press to witnesses who had not yet testified. The trial judge made no effort to control the release of leads, information, and gossip to the press by the prosecuting attorneys, the coroner, police officers, or witnesses. The petitioner was convicted of second degree murder, and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County (100 Ohio App 345, 128 NE2d 471) and the Ohio Supreme Court (165 Ohio St 293, 135 NE2d 340). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari (352 US 910, 1 L ed 2d 119, 77 S Ct 118). Several years later, the petitioner instituted the instant habeas corpus proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The District Court held that the petitioner had been denied a fair trial and was entitled to be released, the state being granted 60 days within which to take further action against him (231 F Supp 37), but the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed by a divided vote (346 F2d 707).

On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed, and directed that the petitioner be released unless the state tries him again within a reasonable time. In an opinion by Clark, J., expressing the view of eight members of the Court, it was held that the failure of the trial judge to protect the petitioner sufficiently from massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity and disruptive influences attending the prosecution deprived the petitioner of a fair trial, in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court emphasizing that the presence of the press should have been limited, representatives of the news media should not have been placed inside the bar, and the judge should have more closely regulated the conduct of the newsmen in the courtroom; that the judge should have made some effort to control the release of prejudicial matters to the press; and that sequestration of the jury was something which the judge should have raised sua sponte with counsel.

13. Alternative Dispute Resolution

Two factors may especially impact negatively on our legal system: delay and cost. The heavy volume of lawsuits and the highly formal and technical procedures involved in all stages of a lawsuit contribute to this problem. The legal system has developed several alternative means, known as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) by which to streamline the process and to settle conflicts.

Mediation

The process of mediation involves seeking an intermediary or outside party to assist parties in resolving their dispute. The intermediary, a mediator, has no legal power to enforce a solution. It is the mediator’s role to assist the parties in understanding each others’ positions, present the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s side, and assess the benefits of settlement versus the cost of proceeding toward a trial..

Arbitration

In this process, the neutral third party, the arbitrator, is empowered to issue a decision that is binding on the parties. The parties may agree to arbitrate a dispute or a statute may be enacted to compel arbitration. Such agreements are usually made before any disputes arise through the inclusion of an arbitration clause in a contract, although arbitration may commence after a dispute arises, through mutual consent of the parties.

Arbitrators need not be attorneys. In many cases they are professionals with expert knowledge of the subject matter in dispute. Arbitration, although a more informal proceeding than a trial, does follow rules of procedure and includes limited discovery.

Mediation/Arbitration

The combination of the above two means for resolving a dispute is called med/arb. This alternative to a lawsuit involves a third party who first acts as a mediator. All issues not resolved through mediation are then subjected to binding arbitration. The mediator and arbitrator may be two different people.

Court-Annexed Arbitration

In this case, arbitration is ordered by a judge after a lawsuit has been filed. Jurisdictions allowing court-annexed arbitration provide that the judge’s decision to order arbitration depends on the subject matter of the dispute and the amount of money at issue. The losing party does not lose his or her right to a conventional trial after the procedure is completed.

Minitrial

The “minitrial” is an ADR procedure used by businesses to resolve legal issues without incurring the expense and delay associated with litigation. A legal dispute is processed through an informal, abbreviated, private “trial” in which the attorneys present their side to a panel of business executives of the disputing companies that have the power to resolve the dispute. Time limits are agreed to in advance. A neutral “advisor” acts as the judge and presides over the hearing, while offering opinions and proposals to the executives.