This paper aims to discuss the similarities and differences between the Californian and the United States federal judicial system. The judicial system in the United States (US) is complex and it will best understood through examining the individual parts. There are several components of the judicial system, classifications for due process, and types of punishment, crime, and the process of criminal justice system. The principal agents accountable for maintaining the law under the US criminal justice system are the defense attorney’s courts, and prosecutors, law enforcement officers along with prisons and jails (Carrillo & Duvernay, 2015). California is one of the states in the United States located in the Pacific Region. The United States has a constitution that generates a federal classification of government, where authority is collective and works between the federal and the state government. This form of government gives both the federal government and each of the state governments a chance to have their own court systems. Besides, counties, cities and other types of municipalities establish other local courts within the state. The state of California has one Supreme Court, six courts of appeal, fifty-eight Superior Courts of California (one for each county), and four federal courts. As a result, there are differences between the US federal and the state governments, which encompass the method of appointment of judges, they type of cases heard at each type of court, caseloads among other differences.
The United States Constitution permits the President to propose federal judiciaries, who the Senate then endorses. The Senate Judiciary Committee regularly performs authorization trials for every contender. Based on Article III of the Constitution, the judicial constables are selected for a period until their retirement. Moreover, the centralized Judiciary, the US Judicial Conference, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts play minimal role in the appointment and endorsement procedure. Apart from the Chief justice, one is not appointed to the position of chief judge, but instead, they attain the status based on seniority. The equivalent principles of advancement exist in district and circuit chiefs inside the federal judicial arrangement. Bresler et al. (2016) state that “the chief judge is the judge in regular active service who is senior in commission of those judges who are sixty-four years of age or under; have served for one year or more as a judge, and lastly, one who has not previously served as chief judge.” However, Congressional arraignment reports can eliminate federal judges from office for misconduct.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, there are two different methods of appointing judges, one method for the appointment of the appellate judges, while the other method involves the appointment of the trial judges. The selection of the appellate judges is done by the governor followed by confirmation by a select committee. This commission is composed of both lawyers and other professionals chosen either by the state bar or executive branch. The commission interviews and screens candidates for judicial positions, after which it sends a list of qualified candidates to the governor for consideration (Bresler et al. 2016). The second method of appointing the California judges through nonpartisan elections, for the appointment of trial judges. This method can be done during both the primary and general elections, where the candidates are listed on the ballot without necessarily designating their party affiliations. Qualifications are similar for judges of the trial and appellate courts. The primary requirement for Candidates is ten years of experience as a judge of a court of record or as a legal practitioner (Carrillo & Duvernay, 2015). The appellate court of California has more than one judge, sometimes three, or even five. State supreme courts usually mirror the federal system and have nine justices, some or all of which may resolve a legal controversy. State courts handle most of the criminal and civil cases in the United States.
There is also a difference Jurisdiction between the California state courts and the Federal Courts, evaluating from the kind of the cases the courts usually authorized to hear. The US court system has embraced greatly the federal kind, which has been seen as more effective method of delivering justice. The Federal Courts have been a contentious concern since the 18th century. The two milestone decisions, which are famous, are the Article III of the U.S Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Bresler et al. 2016). State courts have broad jurisdiction, dealing with cases that individual citizens are generally involved. For instance, cases emanating from incidences such as sexual assault, robberies, and disturbance and trespassing, traffic violations, fraud, broken contracts, and family disputes among others are usually tried in state courts. State courts hear criminal cases and administrative cases as well as tort cases, probate law (wills and estates), family cases, contract disputes and more (Bresler et al. 2016). State courts handle any dispute involving the laws and constitutions of a particular state. However, the state of California cannot allow the hearing of lawsuits against the state, and those involving specific federal laws such as criminal, patent, Antitrust, bankruptcy, and copyright. The federal judicial system usually handles such cases. The Federal courts also carry out their mandate within the precincts of United States’ constitution, and by the legislation enacted by the Congress. Concerning this scenario, federal courts handle cases involving a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution or federal laws (under federal-question jurisdiction),; suits between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (under diversity jurisdiction); and cases in which the United States is a party (Bresler et al. 2016). In some cases, both California state and federal courts have jurisdiction, a situation that allows parties to choose whether they can go to state court or federal court.
Despite the fact that the California state courts hear most Criminal Cases, there are criminal activities that involve federal laws that are usually tried in federal courts. The federal and state court systems share some judicial powers, however there are some instances whereby one crime is punishable based on federal law and another crime may be punishable under the state law or vice versa (Bresler et al. 2016). This to some might appear conflicting, which in some cases can be, although for the most part this permits the federal government to focus on definite crimes ,which they feel are of superior punishing than those “minor” crimes ,which may be dealt with by the states. For instance, robbery is a crime according to state laws. Besides, there are a few federal laws about the robbery, such as the law that makes it a federal crime to rob a financial institution, such as a bank, whose deposits are insured by a federal agency (Bresler et al. 2016). Other instances of federal crimes are the use of the U.S. mails to swindle consumers and peddling illegal drugs into the country or across state lines. Besides, Crimes committed on federal property (such as military reservations or national parks) are also prosecuted in the federal judicial system, not the Californian legal system.
Another observable difference between the two judicial systems is the discrepancies in the number of cases that are usually handled each of the systems. Research finds that State courts handle by far the larger number of cases, and they have more interaction with the public than federal courts do. Despite the fact that federal courts hear far fewer cases than the California state courts, the cases they do understand tend more often to be of national significance. Think of the court cases many people have heard the most about. Most are usually U.S. decisions of the Supreme Court since the federal laws they uphold and the federal rights they safeguard extend to everyone in the country (Bresler et al. 2016). When state cases are known outside their local area, it is often since of the identity of the parties: for instance, the O.J. Simpson case was globally followed, although the outcome might not affect the millions of television viewers.
Federal courts may handle cases concerning state laws if the issue is whether the state law contravenes the federal Constitution. Assuming a state law forbids slaughtering animals outside of specific limited areas. A neighborhood association brings a case in state court against a defendant who sacrifices goats in his or her backyard (Bresler et al. 2016). When the court issues an injunction forbidding the defendant from more sacrifices, and defendant challenges the decision of the state law in federal court as an unconstitutional infringement of his or her religious freedom (Carrillo & Duvernay, 2015). Some kinds of conduct are unlawful under both federal and state laws. For example, federal laws prohibit employment discrimination, and the states have added their own laws, which also forbid employment discrimination. One can go to federal or state court to bring a case under the federal law or both the federal and state laws.
Pleading nomenclature differs in various ways in both judicial systems. In both, the plaintiff files an original complaint. In federal court, the necessary terms for the defendant's pleadings are counterclaim against the plaintiff; cross-claim against a codefendant; and a third-party claim against a fresh defendant-that is, one sued by the original defendant but not the plaintiff (Bresler et al. 2016). In a state court, all three pleadings are called cross-complaints, under the federal "notice" pleading level; the plaintiff needs to only notify the defendant of the relevant occurrence (Carrillo & Duvernay, 2015). Failure to plead an element, even though necessary to succeed at trial, will not easily subject a federal complaint to any motion to dismiss for failure to state a particular claim. However, California's "fact" pleading standard entails factual allegations for every element of each cause of action. The absence of any type of element necessary for stating a complete prima facie case renders that count subject to demurrer
There are a few instances of intersections of state and federal courts. When a state court tries to evaluate any provision of federal law, this may be something that ends up definitely being decided at the federal appellate level. Besides, whenever a federal court hears a diversity jurisdiction case, even though the federal court sits in judgment, it should apply the laws of one or both of the states to the legal crisis as required (Carrillo & Duvernay, 2015). Federal courts can as well hear appeals and post-conviction relief cases that may arise out of state law if some form of the American constitutional protection is implied in the case. For instance, although states often have similar protections to those in the US Constitution, they might not provide a high enough degree of protection. States such as California are free to offer more constitutional protections than afforded by the United States Constitution and not less. State and federal courts can also start prosecuting a defendant for the same acts, which are criminal under both federal and state law. This is referred to as separate sovereigns, and it provides for two prosecutions without subjecting double jeopardy.
References
Bresler, R. Turner, C. D., Stephenson, G. Jr., Karlesky, J., Friedrich, R., & Johal, S. (2016). Understanding American Government (California Edition). BVT Books.
Carrillo, D. & Duvernay, S. M. (2015). The California Judiciary. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 7 (4), 1-34 doi 10.5070/P2cjpp7429126
