Term
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction |
|
Definition
| • Has to do with the nature of the claim such as criminal, civil, family |
|
|
Term
| Discretionary vs. Mandatory Jurisdiction |
|
Definition
• Discretionary: Can control docket
• Mandatory: Must dispose of all cases that enter court |
|
|
Term
| In Personam vs. In Rem Jurisdiction |
|
Definition
• In Personam: Court has jurisdiction over people in the case
• In Rem: Court has jurisdiction over the particular |
|
|
Term
| How are the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the U.S. District Courts similar? different? |
|
Definition
| • Similarities: Neither are found in the Constitution, they both originated in the Judiciary Act of 1789. They both see more civil than criminal cases. In both, judges are appointed through the procedures outlines in Article III. |
|
|
Term
| How are the U.S. Courts of Appeals divided throughout the nation? (i.e. what kind of jurisdiction?) |
|
Definition
| • The Appellate Courts are divided into circuits based on their geographical location. There are 11 circuits. The 9th Circuit is the one in which Washington falls, and is the largest of all the circuits. |
|
|
Term
| Missouri Plan / Merit Method of Judicial Selection |
|
Definition
| • Hybrid – Governor appoints one of three people who have been nominated by a commission. The commission consists of 7 members: 3 from Governor, 3 from elected or appointed by the bar association, and chief judge of state or district. |
|
|
Term
| Election Methods of Judicial Selection |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Appointment Method of Judicial Selection |
|
Definition
• Executive
• Legislative |
|
|
Term
| Full Faith and Credit Clause |
|
Definition
| • Applies to final state court decisions in civil cases only. These have he same force and effect in other states that they have in the courts of the rendering state, providing that the decision does not contravene the Constitution or controlling federal law. |
|
|
Term
| Voire Dire (and the two types of challenges) |
|
Definition
| • The process of jury selection. Peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. |
|
|
Term
| How do/should states select judges? |
|
Definition
| • States select judges in three main ways: Election, Appointment, and the Missouri Plan. Election can take two different forms: partisan and non-partisan. Appointment can be executive or legislative. The Missouri plan is a hybrid between them all. There are arguments for and against all forms but the research shows that the method of judicial selection does not effect the decisions made by judges. |
|
|
Term
| What are some barriers / thresholds to accessing courts? |
|
Definition
| • Case or Controversy. Legal Inquiry, personal injury, political questions, finality of decision, estoppel, exhaustion of administrative remedies, etc. |
|
|
Term
| Republican Party of Minnesota v. White |
|
Definition
| • Case that ruled that judges can talk about their political views on current issues. They stated that the law saying judge’s couldn’t do this violated the First Amendment, especially because this was political speech which is extremely protected. The claimed compelling state interest was to preserve judicial impartiality but the court found that this law did not serve that interest and was unconstitutional. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • System that emerged out of the trial by ordeal that was popular before that. Instead of physically fighting, this is a battle of wits. It is believed to help force the truth, but this is only incidentally the case. The truth is not the goal, winning is. Some practices have evolved to help ensure that the truth is more central such as the discovery process. But the authors argue that the rules of evidence often exclude information that would lead to the truth. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Attorney-Client, Spousal Communications, Priest-Penitent, Physician-Patient |
|
|
Term
| Daubert criteria (from Daubert v. Merrill Dow) |
|
Definition
| • Falsibiable, peer review and publication, rate of error, existence and maintenance of standards controlling the techniques operation, acceptance of the technique within the relevant scientific community. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Allows juveniles to testify via one-way-closed-circuit television in child abuse cases. The defendant cannot see the child and the child cannot see the defendant. The clause of the Constitution that said defendant should face their accuser is not a command but a preference. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Implies proof. Neither asserts nor represents the fact to be proved but allows the fact finder to infer the probability that the fact occurred. Not always relevant. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Out of court statement, made by someone other than the person testifying, for the truth of the matter asserted. Not admissible except for exceptions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Character evidence is generally inadmissible with some notable exceptions. Character evidence cannot be entered in order to cause the jury to infer that because of a defendant’s past conduct, they have acted similarly in the case at hand. One exception to this is if the defendant introduces character evidence about himself then the prosecution can offer character evidence. This is called opening the door. Another exception is if the evidence is being offered to show the truthfulness of the witness on the stand. The most notable exception is that in cases of sexual molestation character evidence pertaining to past behavior is admissible. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • If the party being sued makes repairs to the subject in question (e.g. repairs a broken stair) this cannot be used to show guilt or culpability. The reasoning behind this is that public safety is valued above individual culpability. |
|
|
Term
| Compromise or Settlement (in evidence section) |
|
Definition
| • If one of the parties has offered to make a compromise or settle outside of court, but the other party declines, they cannot use this attempt at settlement against the other party as an admission of guilt. This is because the judicial system does not want to discourage out of court settlements. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • The case that made a right to jury trial (in criminal cases) applicable to states. |
|
|
Term
| The Federal Rules of Evidence (and why we have them) |
|
Definition
| • Adopted in 1975. They have been modeled largely by states with the exceptions of things that are specific to each state’s constitution. We have them because evidence has the most potential to mislead juries. Second and third hand statements, or falsified documents are examples of evidence that can mislead the jury. We have these rules to help streamline the evidence and try to ensure its truthfulness. |
|
|
Term
| What are some exceptions to the warrant rule? |
|
Definition
| • The warrant rule states that the police must have a warrant before searching your property for evidence. In order to obtain a warrant enough evidence must exist to make it more likely than not that searching will lead to evidence. Some exceptions are plain sight, exigent circumstances, and hot pursuit. Also, if the evidence was seized in good faith even if the warrant is later found to be faulty. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Allow for states to have personal jurisdiction over people outside of the case. They take two forms: one that authorizes jurisdiction if the defendant has minimum contacts with the state. The other type specifies the activities a person must engage in while in the state in order to trigger personal jurisdiction (e.g. speeding). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Uses factors based in the law to explain/predict judicial behavior. Some examples of theories that follow the legal model are plain text, originalism, and precedent. There are flaws with each of these and they do not do a very good job of explaining judicial behavior. Largely because many of them are not falsifiable. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Means that judges base their decisions based on the plain meaning of the pertinent statement. This is flawed in many ways, most notably is the fact that many of the statutes do not have a plain meaning. Additionally, identical words and phases may not have the same meaning in different legal contexts such as what is meant by “child support.” Also, the English language is not precise. |
|
|
Term
| Rational Choice/Strategic Models |
|
Definition
| • Rational choice models assume that judges will rank their desired outcomes in order of preference and make decisions in order to maximize their satisfaction. There are three different areas of focus with rational choice models: Internal (which focuses on the politics within the court), external (which looks at external constraints on decision making such as having the decision overturned by a higher court), and Separation of Powers (which assumes that judicial decisions are made within the scope of their constitutionally granted powers). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Asserts that judges make their decisions based upon the facts of the case juxtaposed against their personal policy preferences. It can be seen as the interaction between the judge’s attitudes towards the subjects (litigants) and the situations in question (the case facts). While case facts matter, attitudes are also important. Although the attitudinal model can be applied to all judges or decision makers, it is most likely to be seen in an environment with unfettered decision making capacity, the judge has no ambition for higher office, and the decision cannot be judicially overruled. |
|
|
Term
| What is the mythology of judging? |
|
Definition
| • The mythology of judging is the idea that judges are mouthpieces of the law, that the law speaks through them. Given that different courts and judges do not reach a common decision about a case, when a decision is reached there are often dissenting opinions, and that a change in the courts membership results in different outcomes for a case, we can see that this is not the case. The mythology is perpetuated through reverence, the black robes worn by the judges, and their high position above the rest of the courtroom. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • The power of the court to void actions of legislative or executive branch. It is nowhere in the Constitution, but it fits well into the constitutional framework. The Supreme Court’s independence from other branches and life time tenure provided them with the ability to judge objectively. The court is also structurally in a better position to be impartial then the legislature or the executive branch as their interests are often pitted against each other. Finally, because of federalism, someone needs to be in charge of resolving state and federal conflicts. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • The case that established judicial review. John Marshal was supposed to deliver commissions for new judges established by the Judicial Act of 1801 (the midnight judges act). He didn’t deliver the commission to Marbury so Marbury sued for a writ of mandamus. Marshal (then the chief justice) said that they didn’t have jurisdiction to write the writ of mandamus because the Judiciary act of 1789 that gave them this power was unconstitutional because it expanded the court’s jurisdiction. This established judicial review. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • The geographical division of power between central and local units. In our case, the only Constitutional guidance we have for which powers go to which place is the Supremacy Clause of Article VI which states that the federal law is the supreme law of the land. It’s been commonly understood to be that the federal government has only those powers enumerated in the constitution. The rest is in the power of the states. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • This is the division of federal power into three independent branches. The purpose is to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful and dominating the others. Conflict is built into this model because of the checks and balances. The most obvious example of this is the president’s veto power for acts of Congress and Congress’ ability to override this veto with a supermajority. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Holy writ that governed the laws of the settlers. The constitution is a secular replacement for the holy fundamental laws. It has succeeded in its goal and is just as long lasting as religious texts have been. |
|
|
