1
3
THE COURT SYSTEM
GENERAL COMMENTS
This chapter introduces the student to the U.S. court system, emphasizing the role of courts as a
forum for peaceful resolution of disputes in our society. A civil tort claim is the example used throughout
the chapter to illustrate concepts of civil procedure. Highlights include discussion of the adversary system,
jurisdiction, small-claims court, civil procedure, jury selection, and the nature and use of juries.
The case of Trustees of Columbia University v. Jacobsen presents a stimulating college-life fact
situation that students should be able to relate. Moreover, the case invites discussion of many civil
procedure topics, and provides a lead into the next chapter by discussing the right and merit of Jacobsen
acting in pro se.
CHAPTER SUGGESTIONS
1. Speculation about the change in the role of courts over the last hundred years can lead to a
provocative and fun discussion. Rural versus urban courts, local courts versus increased
2. As discussed in the chapter, significant differences exist in the methods used for selecting and
qualifying jurors. A good project for a class member would be to contact the local jury
commissioner, or another appropriate official at the courthouse, discuss the methods used in your
2 Chapter Three
community for jury selection, and report back to the class. Questions to be researched could include:
How are prospective jurors selected? What reasons excuse a person from service? What fees are
3. Have one or more students prepare an outline of the court system in your state. Compare it with the
4. Have your students visit a local court and report their observations to the class. They should spend
at least an entire morning or afternoon session, and preferably a full day, there. Have them ask a
court clerk, an attorney friend, or a judge to suggest when and where to visit. Have them answer
“How do proceedings differ from the typical television or motion picture presentation of a trial”? If
5. In some locations, you will have access to a local law school. Many law schools have trial advocacy
programs where students present and argue cases before mock juries. If such a program exists in
your area, contact the law school and volunteer your students as mock jurors. From personal
experience, we know the response from students who participate in such proceedings is very
positive and enthusiastic.
6. Have your students find out the current maximum amount of money for which a plaintiff may file a
suit in the small-claims court in your state. Are lawyers allowed to represent parties in your small-
claims courts? If unsuccessful in their desired outcome, can both the plaintiff and defendant appeal?
What determines whether or not the cases observed should have been brought into court? Talk to
someone in a county or state department of consumer affairs about the advisability of using the
small-claims court in your area.
7. An interesting question for class discussion concerns the mechanics of determining whether or not a
The Court System 3
8. Current events make a discussion of the differences between civil and criminal trials relative to
burden of proof, number of jurors, and juror voting (unanimity or three-fourths) especially timely
and relevant.
9. Many videos fit well in this chapter. Although most are created along topical lines, viewing at this
10. Discovery can be a good topic leading to the next chapter’s discussion of attorneys and ADR.
Topics can include the abusive use of discovery, failure to comply with discovery orders, the cost
of discovery, and situations where discovery provided essential information for the other party.
There was a terrific 14-minute video segment of a “60 Minutes” news program on stalling and
11. In 2003, various legislative efforts begun to split up the rather large Ninth Circuit as of this date
they have been unsuccessful. It would be interesting for students, particularly if they are in the
12. Discuss the implications of getting jurisdiction over vendors who sell over the internet. During the
life of this text, one can expect continued development of the tests and standards for jurisdiction of
remote sellers and buyers.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Trustees of Columbia University v. Jacobsen
1. There was no trial in the case. Columbia filed a motion for summary judgment, which later was
2. An appearance pro se is an appearance and participation in court procedures by a party who is
acting on his or her own behalf without an attorney. The reason Jacobsen lost appears unrelated to
his pro se representation. An interesting question is whether or not an attorney would have pursued
4 Chapter Three
the matter. Additional discussion of pro se or in propria persona representation is included in
Chapter 4.
3. The plaintiff in the lawsuit was Columbia University. The University was attempting to collect on
4. The waiver of some of the amount due was an attempt by Columbia University to keep the claim
5. Neither side presented evidence, although affidavits and exhibits supposedly were submitted with
the motion for summary judgment. The court’s use of these documents was based either on the
submissions or reference to them in the various pleadings.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS
1. a. A major purpose of small-claims court is to provide a fair dispute resolution process with a
minimum of formal procedures and rules of evidence. Typically, if one party had the assistance
of counsel, the other party would also desire assistance. If attorneys are involved, the process is
neither simple nor economical.
b. The proceedings in The People’s Court and Judge Judy are arbitrations. Producers of these
The programs do teach some rules of law, although “television judges’” rulings may not
conform to the law of any particular state. They do make people aware of small-claims courts.
Some critics believe these programs lead to an increase in litigation. Parties may be induced to
go to court rather than to negotiate settlements. Parties also may become more theatrical and
expect judges to rule from the bench, and even to lecture the other party. Parties don’t like to be
c. There is no obvious answer. There is little doubt in our minds that persons untrained in the law
do not present a case as skillfully as a lawyer. Therefore, the question becomes an efficiency
The Court System 5
question from both the citizens’ perspective and the government’s. All the rights and
protections in the world are worthless if unobtainable because they are either too expensive or
complicated. There is a right answer to the question, of course, but we are taking it along with
the formulas for Coke and the Colonel’s secret herbs and spices to our graves.
2. The question is concerned with subject matter jurisdiction, or which courts have the power to hear a
case. Whichever court has the power to hear the case, the plaintiff, Jake, then has to get jurisdiction
over Callie, probably by personal service.
a. Yes. The federal District Court in Colorado is a federal trial court and the fact situation is
appropriate for diversity jurisdiction. Callie can get jurisdiction in federal court because of
diversity of citizenship, if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Here it is $77,000
($22,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 = $77,000), and the parties are citizens of different states (Callie is
from Alabama and Jake is from Arizona). The federal district court would have concurrent
jurisdiction (both state and federal courts having the subject matter jurisdiction over the case)
with the Colorado State court. Note: If Callie decided to sue in Colorado state court then Jake,
as a citizen of another state, would have an absolute right to “remove” the case to the federal
court.
3. The class should discuss this question.
4. A defendant on trial for assault and battery, like all persons accused of a crime, has a significant
interest in receiving a fair trial. During jury selection the attorneys (and sometimes the judge) are
allowed to conduct voir dire (questioning of prospective jurors) to determine the qualifications of
members of the jury panel to sit on a particular jury. Properly used, voir dire questions determine
whether or not each prospective juror has the capacity, disposition, and desired neutrality to fairly
6 Chapter Three
5. a. Jury nullification is the power of a jury in a criminal trial to disregard the law and unanimously
find the defendant innocent, although there is compelling evidence to support a verdict of guilty.
Although a judge can set aside a guilty verdict in a criminal case, the judge cannot reverse a
finding of innocence. A judge can order a mistrial upon a showing of jury misconduct, but
6. a. Trial courts conduct trials, as distinguished from courts that conduct appeals of cases previously
decided by trial courts. A trial court determines facts and applies law to those facts for an initial
determination of the legal rights of the litigants. Appellate courts review decisions of lower
courts for substantive and procedural, but not factual, correctness. These courts have the
authority to affirm, modify, or reverse rulings of the lower court, and are also known as
“appeals courts.”
b. Trial courts have three distinct purposes: (1) to determine the facts of the dispute (“What
happened between the competing parties?”), (2) to determine what rules of law should be
7. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Georgia Supreme Court, holding: (1) a criminal defendant’s
racially discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges inflicts the same harm that is inflicted if
the prosecution exercises it—the individual juror excused for racial reasons is subjected to open and
The Court System 7
8. Absent a waiver by the defendant (and in this case there was no waiver), actual service of process
must take place for the court to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant. There was neither personal
service nor a prescribed substitute in this case. Therefore, a motion to dismiss as to Dr. Keill was
proper. The case also discussed the effect of a limited appearance to contest jurisdiction, and it
applied the general rule that such an appearance does not confer jurisdiction. Martin v. N.Y. State
Dept. of Mental Hygiene, 588 F.2d 371, 373 (New York, 1978).
9. To justify reversal of a case, the error made by the trial court judge must have been prejudicial, and
likely to affect the outcome of the case. In this case, the appellate court stated that, although the trial
10. Joshua Southard won. “Jurisdiction deals with the right, power, and authority of the court to act.
The parties, by their actions, cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a court where it does
11. McVeigh argued that emotions would be especially high in the city where the bombing had taken
place, where so many had loved ones or friends who had perished or been injured in the bombing.
12. The professor and students can select her or his characterization of such trials from history. This
will be a value laden discussion, thus the characterizations are normative. The distinction is always
important because when the student expresses their values they should be able to identify the origin
of those values. This is not something people (students or professors) are used to doing which
makes it is all the more important that this exploration take place. The search for the speaker’s
origin of values generally requires several repetitions of the question WHY?