A breakdown of how the court system(s) works

[BarryC]

Maybe one of y'all can help me here, I hope, or maybe direct me to an internet site. I've been searching to no avail.
What I'd like to know, and am very curious about, is a complete break-down, or rundown of the court system in any given place in America, for example in New York City.
What I mean is, what are all the levels of courts that can exist in one place?
And then, what service does each provide? And how do they all relate to each other, like with heirarchies and so on?
Maybe there is a flow-chart or some kind of chart or table that explains it somewhere.
First let me say, I watch a lot of Law and Order, so I'm familiar with a few terms.
Here's what I know: On the local level you have the municipal court for the municipality you live in. Where I live that would be Mullica Township. I guess they would take care of laws broken on local roads, enforced by local police.
Then there are the county courts. On a side note, this county, Atlantic County, is the only county in NJ that has it's county court system broken up into two courthouses in two different places. The criminal court system is in the old courthouse in the county seat, Mays Landing, which is just a town or village that's part of a township (which is a municipality). The civil courthouse is way over in Atlantic City.
Anyway, then there's the state supreme court. Does every state have one? When I get jury duty notices (it's always for service in one of the county courthouses), the notice comes from the "Superior Court of the State of New Jersey". So what's that? The Supreme Court?
Then there's the United States Supreme Court.
But in New York City, which is an unusual city I guess, that city covers 5 counties. So there are 5 different county courthouses, one for each county. Plus there's at least one courthouse for the New York State Supreme Court. And there must be Federal Courthouses there too.
But what is someone referring to when they mention a "federal courthouse"? Does this have something to do with the U.S. Supreme Court?
And back to new York- they have district attorneys. Does every state have them? I think New York State has one for each county. But what about other states?
But when I watch the TV show Due South, which takes place in Chicago, they talk about state's attorneys, not district attorneys as in NYC. Is this because Chicago doesn't have district attorneys? Or do all states have state's attorneys and district attorneys?
Okay, and back to counties- is the county sheriff the equivalent of a police officer for that county? Do county sheriffs and deputies enforce any laws like police officers do, but on a different level?
And back to NYC a minute-- why are the criminal court cases (like on Law and Order) referred to as "the people of the state of New York versus so-and-so"? Are some crimes supposed to be tried in higher courts while others are tried in lower courts? It seems like it.
So these are things I've been curious about for many, many months, at least as long as I've been watching Law and Order. I've been trying to find someplace on the internet that would explain all of this, hopefully in some kind of chart, or table, or maybe a flow-chart--- you know, something that would lay it all out clearly and consisely, to show what all the court systems and law enforcement agencies are, what they do, and how they fit together with each other.
The search engines I use are Ixquick, Dogpile and Google, but I still don't seem to be able to find what I want to know, or maybe I'm using the wrong search terms.
I'm very curious about all this.
As you've proably gathered, there are some details that I've figured out, but not the whole thing.
I don't remember learning this particular thing in Government class in school (that was 11th grade).
Thanks,
Barry

[ThomasMore]

Barry, the answer your question is more complicated than you would think on the surface, and every jurisdiction has its quirks. Bottom line, there is no hard-and-fast rule. Different states set their court systems up differently, and even when two states systems are similar, they might label the courts in confusing names.

In VERY broad, general terms, there are three layers of courts. (Some situations increase or reduce this, even within a given court system.)

The first level of court is the trial court. In the Federal System, it is called the District Court. (In Illinois, it is called the Circuit Court; in New York, it is called the Supreme Court.)

Generally speaking, the trial court is the ONLY place where the facts are elicited. Usually, there is only ONE trial, no matter how many levels of court your case runs through. The trial court is where the witnesses speak, documents and other information are entered into evidence, and the case is decided. Most cases end at the trial level, if they haven't settled before trial.

In the trial court, the judgment can be arrived at in a number of ways. Only certain cases permit juries, others will be tried entirely by judges without a jury. A judge can order a judgment prior to the case ever reaching a jury, if the evidence is so overwhelming to one side that there is no reasonable way a jury could ever find for the other side.

To simplify matters, let's take a jury trial. The way jury trials are set up, a jury will be empaneled, and the attorneys will elicit evidence for the benefit of the jurors. The judge will monitor the trial and decide matters of law, i.e., "is this appropriate information to enter into evidence, based on past law?" or "what does the law require a plaintiff to show to win the case?" In any case, there will be anywhere between dozens and thousands of points of law that the judge must decide. The lawyers will have similar knowledge, and their own ideas about what is legally admissable, and what evidence is required. The judge will decide these matters, control the attorneys and tell the jury what LEGAL bases they must decide the case on.

The jury will then listen to the evidence and apply the law given to them by the judge. By applying the law (explained by the judge) to the facts they are given (by the attorneys), they will decide the facts, and provide their verdict. The judge does have authority to issue a judgment opposite the jury's verdict, if he can show that the jury's verdict is ridiculous. (Note that the jury enters a verdict, the judge enters a judgment.) For example, when a jury awarded a woman 7 million dollars for spilling McDonald's coffee on her lap, the judge reduced the verdict.

As I said earlier, only certain cases permit a jury. When juries are allowed and when they are not is a matter of law. If a jury is not permitted, or even if one is permitted and both sides decide against one, then the judge does both jobs: he decides both the law and the facts.

Once a judgment is entered, the parties are bound by law to adhere to it. THE TRIAL IS OVER.

------

If either side believes that the judge made a mistake OF LAW that materially affected the case's outcome, it can take the matter to a court of appeals. The court of appeals does NOT conduct trials. The role of the appellate court is only to determine whether the trial judge did his job reasonably, or iwhether he made a major error of law. If the judge did his job right, but the jury came to the wrong decision on the FACTS, too bad. The loser still loses, and the appellate court cannot even consider the case.

The way the appellate court will hear the case is each side will prepare one or more "briefs." A brief is an explanation of the following: (1.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case AS ELICITED IN THE TRIAL COURT, (2.) what law applies to the facts (statutes, "precedent" which is how other courts have already decided similar facts, and other secondary guidance as to the law), the conclusions each side wants the appellate court to come to, and the request for relief. A panel of judges (usually 3, although the number could be different) will review the briefs and sometimes allow the lawyers to address them to further explain their briefs.

The appellate court's jurisdiction generally allows it to say either that the trial court was right or at least reasonable, or that the trial judge made a critical mistake. If the appellate court decides that the trial judge erred, then it will usually order the case back to the trial court to fix the problem. That could mean a full retrial (the original trial is rendered void), or some lesser assignment to fix the problem. Not surprisingly, trial judges don't like the reputational damage that goes with having their decisions reversed.

Most appellate decisions are published, and many create precedent for later court decisions. These "fill in the gaps" between the words of statutes or otherwise provide guidance in how law should be read. Lawyers and judges alike follow appellate court decisions so they know how to evaluate and argue similar issues in the future.

--------

Very few cases ever go beyond the appellate court level, and for most cases, there is no right to go beyond the court of appeals. If there are very special circumstances, a further appeal might be taken to the Supreme Court. Most Supreme Court cases involve issues where a major point of law is in contention, and the Appellate Court could not adequately resolve the matter -- for example, two different branches of the Appellate Court decided two very similar cases in opposite directions, or there is an important aspect of public policy that needs clarification. Generally speaking, a case goes to the Supreme Court not because the litigants have a right to it, but because the Supremes decide that an important point of law is unclear and needs to be decided clearly.

The Supreme Court functions very much like the court of appeals. Again, attorneys submit briefs and might provide argument to a panel of judges (usually 7 or 9 judges). The judges will then determine the issue, and again, they will either affirm the lower courts' decision, or reverse and remand (send back).

There are a few categories of case that create a right to go to the supreme court, and these vary by each state's law or federal law.

-------

Hope this helps.

[ThomasMore]

Criminal v. civil law.

Civil law is private law. If I take your car, you can sue me to get the car back or replace its value. It is a dispute between two people. You are the plaintiff, and you file a lawsuit against me. The court will decide the rights between the two.

Criminal law is public law. The matter is NOT between two people. If I take your car, not only did I hurt you, I have acted against law and order. I have injured the whole society. The State now intervenes. The State has the power to punish (individuals don't). A prosecution (not a lawsuit) is brought on behalf of all the people of the state. Even though I stole your car, you aren't the plaintiff, and you don't even have the right to say whether or not the State will prosecute me. You might be a complainant or a victim, but the government will act, and its goal is to punish me, NOT to get your car back.

[ThomasMore]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to "Legal Eagles"?

[BarryC]

A lot of what you said was helpful, so far.
I guess there's a lot more to it than I ever dreamed.
If there's a more appropriate forum for this than the lounge, it can be moved, sure.
I just put it here for no particular reason.

[BarryC]

You made me remember something. You won't believe this story.
In around 1991 or 92 a rear-ending accident happened behind me in a traffic circle back in my home town. I was up in the area visiting old friends. I was travelling through the circle with no problem. Naturally at one point I had to wait before proceeding. That's normal. At any rate, at the point where I started to move again after waiting, I thought I heard the sound of someone slamming on his brakes and skidding. I looked in my mirror and saw a car, whose occupants looked as if they had just stopped short (I saw the body motion). I said outloud to myself "stupid woman", and proceeded on my way, since none of it involved me.
Where I was going at the time happened to be on a side road within sight of the circle. Later on I saw a police car with it's lightbar on, at the circle.
Then a couple weeks later back home I got a ticket in the mail for careless driving, based on a "citizen complaint".
I showed up in court to fight the ticket. On the ticket it said if you go to the court you need to be there by 8 am, or 9 am. My case was the second to the last one of the day, just before 5 pm. Boy was I ticked! The judge practically laughed me out of the courtroom when I explained the situation, and he said, just pay the fine. Whether or not this was even relevant, I don't know, but I had mentioned how I was in the right lane as I went around the circle. He said I should have been on the inside lane, the left lane. (why???)
But there was one thing that made me smile, fortunately. The case that was heard after me turned out to be the guy who rear-ended the woman who was directly behind me. The judge said "why are you here today?" He told the judge that he was there to ask the judge to make me pay for the tickets he got after the accident- tickets he got for driving without headlights on his car. Apparently when he rear-ended the woman, the entire front of his car was smashed and he had no headlights. He wanted me to pay for tickets he got because of that! The judge said no way.
Anyway a year later I suddenly got 9 points on my license, 4 for being in an at-fault accident (which I was not even involved in), and 5 for getting the careless driving ticket. The 9 points put me in a high-risk group of drivers and I was no longer eligible for normal car insurance. I had to be insured by a special company, plus pay hundreds of dollars in surcharge fees.
Meanwhile around the same time the County Sheriff showed up at my job to serve me with lawsuit papers. The woman who got rear-ended was suing me for her medical expenses, plus her husband was also suing me for loss of the services of a wife! That was a new one on me. The woman also was demanding that there be a jury trial against me!
This dragged on for 6 or 7 years. Near the end my insurance company's lawyers kept scheduling me for some kind of hearing (it's been so long that I can't remember what they called it). Every time it was scheduled I had to call on the phone the day before to make sure it was going on as scheduled, and each time it had been postponed. Finally both insurance companies just settled without going to court.
Eventually all the points on my license went away and I was allowed back in the pool of safe drivers. Then I had to get normal car insurance again. So I went with Allstate.
My theory on how the accident happend is this:
The woman was cruising down State highway 10 (which ends at U.S. 46, at a circle). It's a divided highway. My theory is she was cruising down the highway towards the circle, not paying much attention, maybe daydreaming, when suddenly she realized there was a pickup truck (me) in the circle that wasn't moving very fast. Instead of going around me, she simply slammed on the brakes. Someone else was tailgating her and slammed into her.
So apparently she took my license plate number in the few seconds I was in front of her before I proceeded on my way. So then later when the police were there, she somehow blamed me, and gave the police my license plate number. Then I got the ticket in the mail and she decided to sue me.
Go figure.
Only in America I guess.