Module 1 Case Analysis Assignment Chapter 3 Question 1 (pg. 65) Q: Explain the two types of jurisdiction that a court must have to hear a case and render a binding decision over the parties. A: Original Jurisdiction involves parties that present evidence and witnesses to testify. With the original jurisdiction the courts have the power to hear a case as soon as it enters the legal system. Appellate Jurisdiction is the ability to review the transcripts of trial courts and see if they may have made an error in their decision.
Strict Constructionism, on the other hand, is a distinct legal philosophy that limits or controls some judicial interpretation. A judge who uses strict
In this essay, first the arguments of the Federalist Paper and the Supreme ruling of Marbury v. Madison will be discussed. Then these two sources will be compared and the similarity and difference will be clarified. Finally, the necessity of judicial review in the checks and balance system and its importance will be proved. One of the most important features of the jurisdiction, Hamilton stated, was the complete independence of the branch from the other two branches. The tenure in which the judges hold during good behavior is their biggest protection and creates the separation from other branches.
Judicial review is the right, or duty, the court has to review the constitutionality of legislation and/or actions taken by the executive branch. The court has the right to choose its cases, but these are brought before them not sought after by the court. What is the separation of powers? This is a form of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. They are in place so as to contain the power of any one branch attempting to overstep its authority and act in a tyrannical matter.
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
ROLE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE Is the Case an Appropriate One for Punitive Damages? It is the responsibility of the trial judge, in the first instance, to determine whether the case is appropriate for punitive damages, i.e. whether the question of punitive damages will be submitted to the jury.' The main focus of that determination is the nature of the defendant's conduct. The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others.
* What is an order issued by the Supreme Court to a lower court requiring a case for review? A writ of certiorari. Exercises: 1. Explain constitutional law and states powers using Chapter 1, Section 3 as a basis for your answer. Constitutional law is a group of laws made to keep a good foundation and it gives an idea of the outcome of business.
Sir John Salmond defined law as “a body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice”. However, sometimes those systems are flawed, and therefore, an injustice will occur, such as when innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit as in the case of the Guilford Four whom wrongly served sixteen years in prison. Distributive justice is concerned with economics at its core but not just our modern interpretation of what economics is. The idea of distributive justice and economics comes from the Greek ‘oikonomia’ which was defined in Aristotle’s time as “household management” and rather than modern interpretations of economics as just the allocation and flow of wealth it was also extended to the rights and responsibilities within society. Aristotle himself saw it best to distribute the wealth on the basis of merit; that those whom contributed the most to society should reap the largest rewards.
Judicial decisions have also effectively created new crime as in Shaw v. DPP (1962) – offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, or R v. R (1991) – rape within marriage is a crime. Also, in contract and tort law, nearly all the main rules come from cases decided by judges. Many of them were made in the last century or so but still affect today law e.g. Felthouse v. Bindley (1863) – silence can not be deemed as consent (acceptance of an offer) or the neighbourhood principles produced in Donoughue v. Stevenson (1932). So how can judge create law through the doctrine of precedent?
Question 2 Although the doctrine of precedent allows some flexibility, it fundamentally requires judges to respect the hierarchy of the courts . Discuss The doctrine of binding precedent or stare decisis, lies at the heart of the English legal system. In essence the doctrine refers to facts that within the hierarchical structure of the English Court, a decision of the highest court will be binding on a court lower. When a court makes a decision in a case, any court which is of equal or lower status to that court must follow that previous decision if the case before them is similar to that earlier case. Moreover, the doctrine requires that like cases should be treated alike in the interests of consistency and certainty of the law as well as a fairly rigid hierarchy of courts.