US Judiciary System HOW THE U.S. COURT SYSTEM FUNCTIONS It is something of a myth to speak about a single U.S. court system because the U.S. judicial system is in reality composed of multiple autonomous courts. There is the federal court system, an integrated system divided into numerous geographic units and various levels of hierarchy; in addition, each state has its own court system with a system of local courts that operate within the state. Under this dual federal/state court structure, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of federal law, while the highest court of each state (usually called supreme courts) has the ultimate authority to interpret matters of the law of its state. When federal constitutional or statutory matters are involved, the federal courts have the power to decide whether the state law violates federal law. The federal judiciary and the individual state judicial systems are each constructed like a pyramid. Entry-level courts at both the state and federal levels are trial courts, in which witnesses are called, other evidence is presented and the fact-finder (a jury or sometimes a judge) is called upon to decide issues of fact based on the law.   The US Supreme Court At the top of each pyramid structure is the court of last resort (at the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court; at the state level, the state supreme court) which has the authority to interpret the law of that jurisdiction. In most states and in the federal system there is also a mid-level court of appeals. The Federal Courts Traditional federal courts are known as Article III courts because they have the power of judicial review and certain protections under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. These courts are organized in a three-tiered hierarchical structure and along geographic divisions. At the lowest level are the U.S. District Courts, which are the trial courts. Appeals from the U.S. District Courts are taken to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, often referred to as U.S. Circuit Courts. From there, cases may be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. Much of the Supreme Court's review power is discretionary, and only a small percentage of cases brought to it are actually ruled on by the Court.   District Courts The U.S. District Courts are entry-level courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they hear cases involving various criminal and civil matters. There are 94 U.S. federal judicial districts, with at least one district court in each state. In the largest and most heavily populated states, there are several districts, but districts do not cross state lines. The number of judges depends on the size and population -- and hence workload -- of each district court. Although each district court has numerous judges, a single judge presides over each case.   Courts of Appeals The U.S. Courts of Appeals, is the intermediate-level federal court. The courts of appeals are considered the workhorse of the federal court system because the brunt of cases are resolved there. Appeals are taken from U.S. district courts to the U.S. courts of appeals if a losing party feels that the judge in the district court made an error of law. Appeals may not be taken to correct perceived errors of fact, unless there is a clear error of law. Thus, for example, a losing party may argue that the judge erred by admitting a certain document into evidence; but the losing party may not argue that the judge or jury reached a bad conclusion based only on that document.   COURT OF APPEALS: CIRCUIT COURTS The U.S. Courts of Appeals is divided geographically into 12 circuits -- 11 numbered circuits, each covering at least three states, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit), which also hears cases involving the federal government. Each circuit hears appeals from the district courts within its territory. The number of judges in each circuit varies widely and is determined by the population and size of each circuit. A panel of three judges -- chosen at random -- sits on each case, and different combinations of judges sit on different cases. The U.S. Courts of Appeals may decide cases on the basis of written briefs submitted by the litigants or may order oral argument. A decision is based on written opinion drafted by one of the judges and circulated to the other two panel members. The opinion of the court also must be signed by at least two panel members. Any of the judges on the panel may write a concurring opinion in which the judge agrees with the result reached in the majority opinion but for different or additional reasons. A judge that disagrees with the opinion of the court may instead write a dissenting opinion explaining why he or she has reached a different conclusion. Although dissenting and concurring opinions do not have the force of law, they may be highly influential in subsequent court decisions.   WRIT OF CERTIORARI After the three-judge panel has rendered a decision, litigants have several options: they may seek reconsideration of the decision by the same three-judge panel; they may seek rehearing of the panel's decision by all of the judges of that circuit sitting together; or they may seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court by filing a motion for a writ of certiorari, (when the lower courts have ruled on the case and disagreed on their opinions). Each of these measures of relief is discretionary, however, and is rarely granted. The U.S. Supreme Court is at the apex of the federal court system and consists of nine justices who hear and decide cases. As in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, justices may join the majority opinion or may write or join a concurring or dissenting one.   RULE OF FOUR The Supreme Court's general jurisdiction is largely discretionary through the process of certiorari. Under the so-called rule of four, if four of the nine justices favor hearing a case then certiorari will be granted. The Court often accepts cases in which there is a split of authority among different U.S. circuit courts or in which important constitutional or other legal principles are implicated. The denial of certiorari does not imply agreement with the lower courts' decisions, but simply indicates that the requisite number of justices for whatever reason did not want to hear the case. Besides a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court can review cases on appeal from federal courts or state supreme courts whose decisions are based on an issue of federal law (for example, when a federal appeals court invalidates a state statute; or when a state court strikes down a federal statute). The Court also may decide specific legal issues referred to it by lower federal courts. The Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction over certain limited cases: controversies between two states; controversies between the United States and an individual state; actions by a state against a citizen of another state or an alien; and cases brought by or against a foreign ambassador or consul. Special Courts In general, the federal court system does not create special courts for specific matters. Two notable exceptions to this rule are the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which handles monetary suits brought against the United States, and the U.S. Court of International Trade, which is authorized to hear and decide civil actions against the United States, federal agencies or their employees, arising out of any law pertaining to international trade. There is also one specialized federal appeals court -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court has jurisdiction over appeals from all district courts in cases arising under patent laws as well as over appeals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the Court of International Trade. The federal system also embraces a number of courts known as legislative or Article I courts, referring to Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Article I courts act pursuant to Congress' legislative powers and have the authority to decide factual questions relating to specific matters. Examples of Article I courts include the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts. Appeals from these courts may be brought to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Administrative Courts Federal agencies play an enormous role in developing and carrying out U.S. laws on a wide array of topics, from the regulation of natural resources to the health and safety of workers. Often, this means that an agency will sit as a fact-finding tribunal in applying federal regulations. When disagreements occur, the parties present their evidence to an administrative law judge (ALJ), who acts as the fact-finder. Either party may appeal the judge's decision, usually to a board or commission established by the federal agency that issued the regulations. Because the ALJ has already served the fact-finding function that would normally be undertaken by a federal district court, appeals from rulings of major agencies (e.g., National Labor Relations Board or the Federal Trade Commission) are brought directly before the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Although such appeals may be brought in any circuit, as a practical matter the D.C. Circuit hears most appeals from federal agencies. The State Courts Each state, as well as the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, has its own independent judicial system, that operates independently. The highest court in each state is the ultimate authority on what the law is with regard to state law from the state's point of view. The structure of state courts, like that of the federal courts, is in the form of a pyramid. Most states have a three-tiered judicial system composed of a trial-court level (sometimes called superior courts, district courts or circuit courts), an appellate court (often called the court of appeals) and a court of last resort (usually called the supreme court). Some states simply have one level of appeal. As in the federal court system, trials are presided over by a single judge (often sitting with a jury); entry-level appellate cases are heard by a three-judge panel; and in state supreme courts, cases are heard by all members of the court, which usually number seven or nine justices. Also like the federal system, state court cases begin at the trial-court level. These courts are often divided into two levels: courts of general jurisdiction and specialized courts. Cases decided by a trial court are subject to appeal to and review by an appellate court. In some states, as noted above, there is only one level of appeal from the lowest state court. In states in which there are two courts of appeal, rules differ as to whether a case will automatically go to the appeals court or the state supreme court. In some states, appeals from the trial court are brought to the mid-level state appellate court, with subsequent discretionary review by the state supreme court. In other states, litigants bring appeals from the trial-level court directly to the supreme court, which decides whether to hear the case itself or to have the appeal resolved by the intermediate appeals court. Under either of these scenarios, the state supreme court generally reviews cases that involve significant matters of state law or policy. Specialized state courts are trial-level courts of limited jurisdiction that only hear cases that deal with specific kinds of legal issues or disputes. Although these courts vary from state to state, many states have specialized courts for traffic matters, family law matters, probate for the administration of decedents' estates, and small claims (for cases involving less than a specific sum of money). Rulings of these specialized courts are subject to appeal and review by state courts of general jurisdiction. Local Courts Each of the 50 states is divided into localities or municipalities called cities, counties, towns or villages. Local governments, like their state counterparts, have their own court systems, which are presided over by local magistrates, who are public civil officers possessing judicial power delegated under the local governing laws. This may include the power to rule on laws relating to zoning authority, the collection and expenditure of local taxes, or the establishment and operation of public schools. Conclusion One of the elements of the U.S. legal system that makes it at once so complex and so interesting is the fact that both the federal government and each state has its own judicial system. Each judicial system is marked by differences in function and operation. Moreover, the fact that there is overlapping jurisdiction and that any court may hear issues of federal and state law complicates the functioning of these systems further. At bottom, all court systems in the United States are similar in most fundamental respects. U.S. courts are, for the most part, courts of general jurisdiction. In addition, each system is in the hierarchical form of a pyramidal structure, allowing review and -- if necessary -- revision by upper-level courts. PLAYERS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS Besides the defendant in a trial, there are other players who bring their own unique perspectives to the process. In separate interviews, contributing editors Stuart Gorin and Bruce Carey talk with Assistant U.S. Attorney Rosa Rodriguez Mera, Southern District of Florida, on the role of the prosecutor; Martin Sabelli, a public defender in San Francisco discusses the fairly new civil right in the U.S. of the right to counsel in a criminal trial; Steve Mayo, a San Francisco attorney who serves as the director of the Institute for the Study of Legal Systems, comments on the process for jury selection; and Judge Laura Safer Espinoza, a New York state judge, explains the mechanics of the courtroom. The Prosecutor: US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Federal prosecutors divide their cases into two major categories -- reactive and proactive. Reactive cases are instantaneous. In proactive cases, which can be time-consuming, there is a lot of investigative work that is done before a person is arrested. These types of cases usually are pursued in cooperation with such federal agencies as the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Customs Service, Rodriguez Mera adds. When prosecutors interview law enforcement witnesses, she explains, the agents have to explain such things as how they carried out surveillance. Tapes and transcripts also are reviewed with informant witnesses who will be testifying in the case. Once a crime has been committed and a suspect is in custody, the agent notifies the on-duty prosecutor, who determines what evidence there is for an arrest. Such questions as "Where were the drugs?" and "How do we know the defendant knew there were drugs in the suitcase?" are asked of the arresting agents. The prosecutor then contacts the magistrate judge on duty, who issues the arrest warrant and decides how much bond will be set for a defendant.   The defendant makes an initial appearance before the magistrate within 48 hours. At that hearing, an attorney is appointed to the defendant if he or she needs one; the defendant is informed of the charges and bond is set. Rodriguez Mera says that if a large amount of drugs is involved or there is a risk of flight or a danger to the community, then the government will request the suspect be held without bond. Otherwise, the judge can set bond in the case and free the defendant pending trial. After the defendant has been indicted, if he or she decides to plead "not guilty," a number of steps can delay the start of a trial, including motions by the defense to suppress evidence -- which the judge rules upon -- and discovery -- when the prosecutor turns over copies of statements, lab reports, tapes or other evidence to the defense counsel. The Public Defender The right to counsel stems from the 1963 case of Clarence Gideon (Gideon v. Wainwright), a poor, uneducated man in Florida, who was accused of a minor crime. Gideon appeared in court without money or counsel and asked the court to appoint him a lawyer. But the judge refused because Florida law allowed court-appointed counsel only in cases that could carry the death penalty. Gideon was convicted and sentenced to prison, but appealed his case through the Florida state court system and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court.   The public defender is, in fact, part of the court itself.. But no judge -- in fact, no person -- can interfere with the privileged relationship between a public defender and his client. U.S. attorneys take greater care in preparing cases and treating the accused with fairness and dignity, when they know that a public defender is on the other side. The 4th Amendment provides right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the 5th Amendment right against double jeopardy and against self-incrimination, and the right to due process; the 6th Amendment right to a speedy public trial, to be allowed to confront witnesses, and to obtain favorable evidence. The right to counsel makes all the other rights possible," he says. And in the long run, "it gives us better justice and confidence in our government." The Jury Selection of a jury of one's peers is a strictly random process. The clerks of local court systems compile names from a number of lists, including, but not limited to, voter registration, automobile registration and driver's licenses. Anyone who is at least 18 years of age, is a U.S. citizen and has no felony conviction record is eligible, and is required to report to the courthouse on a given day as part of a jury pool. Some states require persons in the pool to return every day for a given length of time; others use a "one day or one trial" system, after which the citizen is excused from further duty. In either case, usually a person is not called back for several years. On a typical day several hundred prospective jurors are called to a courthouse and are asked questions by the judge and the lawyers to determine their eligibility to serve. Examples of questions include "Do you speak and understand English?" and "Have you been the victim of a crime?" In the criminal system, he says, the lawyers on both sides have a number of challenges to excuse prospective jurors without giving a specific reason why. Ultimately, they agree on 12 men and women to serve on a trial and also select three alternates who serve if one of the 12 has to drop out during the course of the trial. For civil cases, sometimes only six jurors are needed.   SEQUESTERED JURY Occasionally -- often for some high-profile criminal cases -- a jury is "sequestered" for the length of the trial. That means the jury members cannot go home and are kept in hotel rooms where they do not have access to radio, television or newspapers so they cannot be influenced by what the media says about a case. Immediately prior to a trial, the lawyers in agreement with the judge, have to decide what evidence is going to be allowed to go to the jury. He adds that the lawyers also come up with "questions to put to jury members so when they go to deliberate they will have specific questions they factually have to answer." For example, a question in a civil case might be "Was the person negligent when he ran into the other car?" In a criminal case, a lawyer might ask "Did the defendant knowingly shoot the person?" Specific instructions of law to the jury also have to be worked out by the lawyers and the judge. This could include such things as definitions of terms brought up during the trial, how to treat circumstantial evidence and how to treat expert witnesses. Once the jury goes into deliberation, it selects a foreman from among its members. This person serves as a moderator of the discussions, noting that frequently people become very firm in their beliefs and they are not willing to listen to others present their views. The foreman allows everyone to make their views known and keeps the discussion on track. Deliberations can take hours or even several days because decisions have to be unanimous. A mistrial can be declared if a jury cannot reach a verdict. In a criminal case, if a guilty verdict is reached, the sentence is usually handed down by the judge at a later date. And guilty or innocent, at the conclusion of the trial the jury is excused with the thanks of the court for carrying out its civic duty. With very few exceptions, the jury system does its job properly, and the decisions reached are almost always the same as the judge would have determined if there had been no jury. The Judge This differs from the civil law system practiced in many other countries, where a judge takes the role of investigator and formulator of charges as well as the trier of cases. She points out, however, that in both systems, in the event of a guilty finding, the judge usually determines the sentence.   CODE OF ETHICS In a criminal trial in the United States, defendants have the right to face an accuser, opposing counsel have the right to cross-examine witnesses, and all of this takes place before a judge and/or jury, who make "independent determinations of fact" in the case. No judge is allowed to have exparte, or out-of-court conversations without both of the attorneys being present, she adds. This is required by the US code of ethics, and is a critical component to maintaining honesty and a lack of possibilities for corruption in the judiciary system. Regarding courtroom decorum, that trials are open to the public and "any citizen has the right to observe what is taking place." She adds that the judge has to maintain order among both the spectators and the two sides in the trial, while moving the proceedings along. If attorneys do not behave in a professional manner, the judge has the power to hold them in contempt of court, and they could face either a fine or a short jail sentence, though this rarely happens. In recent years, a firestorm of controversy has erupted in the United States over whether or not to allow trials to be televised. It is an argument about the balance between the rights of the public to know about the case and the rights of the accused to a measure of privacy. NY State Judge Espinoza allows that the written press has a right to be in the courtroom, but she believes that cameras "can lead to a distortion of the proceedings," especially in high-profile cases. Different state legislatures set their own rules relating to TV in the courtroom, she says, but even where it is allowed, a judge still has the discretion to ban it in certain cases. By contrast, television cameras are not allowed in federal courtrooms.   JUDGE SELECTION PROCESS The selection process for becoming a judge in the United States varies depending upon the state, but generally follows one of two main routes -- through popular election or appointment by a governor or mayor. In Espinoza's home state of New York, a candidate has to be a practicing attorney for a minimum of 10 years and face a merit-selection screening panel of representatives of law schools, bar associations and community organizations. The panels then pass to electoral officials names for consideration to be placed on ballots, or to the selecting official if the appointment system is used. Terms for judges in New York are for 10 years for lower courts and 14 years for higher courts. Depending upon their performance, judges then may or may not be reelected or reappointed. KEY DISTINCTIONS IN THE U.S. COURT SYSTEM Civil v. Criminal Trials The rules for civil v. criminal trials vary somewhat in the federal and state systems, but are similar in most respects since, under the Constitution, all trials must confer specific rights to defendants, and since the rules of evidence are generally the same in both. But there are major differences in procedure for civil and criminal trials: 1. Pleading. The statement of the claim or charge is more precise and detailed in a criminal case. 2. Discovery. The ability of each side -- prosecution and defense -- to gather information to support their position, is more limited in a criminal case. 3. Higher Burden. In a criminal trial, a defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil trial, the plaintiff and the party bringing the case must prove the claim only by the greater weight of evidence, a test, for example, the Simpson jury in the civil trial believed was met. 4. Greater Protection. Because of the more severe penalties that can be imposed, a defendant in a criminal trial is accorded more procedural rights and safeguards than a defendant in a civil trial. 5. Right to Appeal. If a criminal defendant is acquitted, the prosecution's right to appeal is almost nonexistent since the defendant cannot stand trial twice for the same crime. In a civil case the loser has the right to appeal. 6. Speedy Trial. In jurisdictions with speedy trial laws, criminal cases may be tried more promptly than civil cases. Criminal Trials and the Rights of Defendants The judge is the manager of the trial and the final arbiter of the applicable law. The jury decides whether the prosecution has presented enough evidence to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution and the defense team present their case, under the rules of procedure, in an adversary system. What is often amazing to overseas observers is the array of rights that surround a criminal defendant once he or she is accused of a crime. This is known in the United States as "due process of law." Those rights include: 1. Prosecution only after a preliminary judicial procedure that finds probable cause based on credible evidence presented by the prosecution. 2. Right to be brought into open court, where the charges are read to the defendant, who must then enter a guilty or not guilty plea. 3. Right to counsel except in trials for minor offenses. This includes the right to a court-appointed lawyer at government expense if the defendant cannot afford one. The defendant also has the right to require the attendance of witnesses and to confront them -- through his lawyer -- at trial. 4. Entitlement to a trial in open court by a jury of one's peers -- in other words, fellow citizens. In the United States, verdicts in criminal trials require a unanimous jury verdict in most jurisdictions and, unlike in other countries with jury systems, both the prosecution and the defense have a limited right to strike jurors they believe will not be fair. 5. Only one trial for the same offense. This is the celebrated protection against double jeopardy that protects defendants from over-zealous prosecutors determined to eventually find a jury that will convict. 6. Right against self-incrimination. In the United States, a defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself, a right O.J. Simpson, for example, invoked in his criminal trial. If a defendant chooses to testify, however, he must answer questions from the prosecution as well as the defense. 7. Competence to stand trial. A defendant must be mentally competent to understand the offenses of which he is charged. 8. A speedy trial. The Constitution guarantees a speedy trial by an impartial jury in the jurisdiction where the offense was committed. The trial may, however, also be moved to another jurisdiction if it is felt that an impartial jury cannot be found. 9. Pretrial Proceedings. A defendant has the right to adequate time to prepare a defense and can waive his right to a speedy trial. He also has the right to obtain any evidence in the possession of the prosecution that might prove his innocence. In addition, he has the right to interview witnesses before trial. The Course of a Criminal Trial A criminal trial begins with opening statements -- first by the prosecution and then by the defense. The prosecution then presents its evidence and witnesses, who are subject to cross- examination by the defense. The court -- in essence, the judge - - can dismiss the case at this stage if he believes the evidence does not prove the defendant committed the crime. The defense then has the opportunity to present its evidence and witnesses. After the defense case has been presented, the prosecution may present rebuttal evidence. As in a civil trial, the judge supervises the proceedings and rules on disputes about admissibility of evidence. The trial ends with closing statements by both sides and deliberation by the jury, following instructions by the judge. The jury must find the defendant guilty or not guilty on each charge. A verdict of not guilty terminates the proceedings and the defendant is freed. In the case of a defendant who is found guilty or who has pled guilty, obviating the need for a trial, the sentencing phase begins, except in death penalty cases, where the jury is required to decide between death and a lesser penalty. The sentencing process includes a pre-sentencing investigation and the filing of a report on all matters germane to the defendant's sentence. The defendant can review and comment on that report. The defendant also has the right to counsel at his sentencing hearing. The court then enters an order, specifying the punishment imposed on the defendant and how that punishment is to be carried out. The judge imposes the sentence subject to any sentencing guidelines that may have been prescribed by law. Significantly, all defendants in criminal trials have the right to appeal to a higher court, including in some cases, up to the U.S. Supreme Court. A trial verdict can be overturned if errors of law have occurred, or a defendant's rights have been violated. The appeals process is an integral part of the U.S. judicial system. Many defendants have had their sentences overturned or reduced by appeals courts. The Course of a Civil Trial In civil trials, a defendant has many, but not all of the rights that would be available in a criminal trial. A civil action begins with a written statement of a plaintiff's claim and the relief he seeks, called a "complaint." The court then issues a summons, asking for a response to the complaint within a specific timeframe after the defendant receives it. The defendant must admit or deny each allegation and present any defense. He may also assert claims against the plaintiff, a co-defendant or a person not originally part of the case. He may also move to dismiss the suit for failure to state a valid claim. He could also ask the court to dismiss the suit, claiming lack of jurisdiction over either the subject of the suit or the defendant himself. He might also suggest the plaintiff brought suit in the wrong court or that the defendant was not properly notified of the pending case. The next phase is a broad "discovery process," which does not normally involve the court. A party seeking discovery, however, requests help from the court to compel a reluctant opponent or other person to give information. Similarly, a party from whom unreasonable discovery is sought may seek the court's protection. Discovery may include: written questions to be answered under oath; oral deposition under oath; requests for pertinent documents; physical or mental examinations where injury is claimed; and requests to admit facts not in dispute. Before trial, either party may move for summary judgment on any issue the evidence does not support. If the case continues to trial, the court may enter a pretrial order, defining the issues to be decided by the trial and making other provisions to expedite it. Civil cases sometimes concern grave crimes, as in the Simpson case. Often, however, they concern less serious offenses, such as landlord-tenant disputes. In some instances, third parties are sued. For example, in the case of a recent shooting in Atlanta, Georgia, in which the alleged triggerman was killed, a relative of one of his victims sued the investment company where the shootings occurred, the owners of the building, the company responsible for security there and the estate of the deceased gunman. Civil actions are normally tried in a court open to the public before a judge and jury of six to 12 jurors chosen at random, unless the parties agree to a trial by a judge only. As in a criminal trial, the parties have the right to dismiss certain jurors. The judge manages the trial proceedings and declares the applicable law. After opening statements, the plaintiff, who has the burden of proof, offers his evidence. If the evidence does not sustain the claim, it is dismissed at this point. If the evidence is deemed sufficient, the defendant presents his case. After both sides present their evidence, the judge may dismiss any or all claims that are not supportable. Each party is then allowed to make a closing statement, and then, the judge explains the law to the jury. If the case goes to the jury, it alone must decide what the facts are and decide the case accordingly. Majority jury verdicts, however, are allowed in more civil trials than criminal trials. In a case tried without a jury, the judge decides the case. Civil penalties are generally much less onerous than those imposed in criminal trials. In the Simpson civil trial, for example, an $8.5 million verdict was imposed on the defendant. Although this may seem severe, it is considerably less punitive than the life prison term Simpson would have faced had he been found guilty in the criminal trial. Simpson was convicted unanimously in the civil case, but, under California law, he could have been convicted by a 9-3 decision. In the criminal trial, however, a unanimous verdict was required. In addition to financial recoveries, civil penalties may include ordering a party to perform or refrain from a specific act or other appropriate relief. The judge may also impose court costs on the losing party. Those costs are nominal and do not ordinarily include attorneys' fees. As in criminal cases, the losing party has the right to appeal the decision. US Code of Ethics In the United States the personal code of conduct is fortified by written canons of ethics. So in my view, the personal code of conduct should be reflected in a written code of ethics, and judges should talk about that code. When you hear or read the U.S. code of ethics, it sounds so simple, so basic, so elementary, that you might think everybody would agree with it. It sounds almost simplistic, like a platitude. Let me read the seven canons of ethics. These precepts are principles with which no one could disagree. 1. A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. 2. A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. 3. A judge should perform the duties of the office impartially and diligently. 4. A judge may engage in extra-judicial activities to improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. 5. A judge should regulate extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial duties. 6. A judge should regularly file reports of compensation received for law-related and extra-judicial activities; and 7. A judge should refrain from political activity. A Committee of Judges In the U.S. federal judiciary, there is a committee of judges that answers questions from all members of the judiciary who have concerns about judicial ethics. The committee gives the judge not only some advice and some principles to think about and to consider, but it also gives the judge some protection. If the judge is later criticized for hearing a case, he or she says, "Well, I wrote about this to the committee and the committee agrees with me." Let me give you an example. We had a judge who had spent time on a very complex anti-trust case. During the case, he met a lady and they were married. He found out that his wife had a substantial number of shares of stock in the corporations that he was dealing with, and so he wrote to the committee asking what he should do. So, an ethical system should have a personal and professional code; it should have a written system of ethics, and it should have a mechanism for enforcing them. Acknowledging A Judicial Code In the federal system in the United States, a judge can be removed only by being impeached by the U.S. Senate. There have been only seven instances in our 200-year history in which the Senate has had to remove a judge. Some other judges have resigned under pressure.Because of such things as corruption, bribes, alcoholism or mental instability. In addition to removal of a judge by impeachment, the United States has a disciplinary mechanism in which judges are admonished or reprimanded for misbehavior. This is controlled by the judiciary itself, and I think it very important that any mechanism for the censure or reprimand of judges short of removal should be within the hands of the judiciary. But in turn, the judiciary ought to have a strong enough ethic, a strong enough tradition of fairness and independence that it can deal with its own problems. EARNING MONEY In the federal system, judges can earn money from teaching and from writing. That salary is limited by federal law, and it is roughly 10 percent of the judge's salary. But you must get the permission of the chief judge of your court before doing so in order to ensure that it will not conflict with your judicial activities. They can never take a fee for lecturing to any group that has an interest before the court. And they must lecture only to law schools or professional associations. Insofar as engaging in other activities like protests and rallies and so forth, judges cannot do that.

Ingles Militar: Desde una pistola automatica a sistemas integrados de alerta temprana. CLICK AQUI Ingles de Negocios: Comente en Ingles un Business plan, o envie por e-mail un contrato. CLICK AQUI     Ingles legal: Aprenda terminos legales en ingles y derecho civil, comercial, criminal y constitucional de los Estados Unidos. CLICK AQUI     Nomenclatura IT: Para los que trabajan en Sistemas, es escencial conocer terminos comerciales de IT, internet y Computacion. CLICK AQUI