The U.S.’ dual-court system has offered courts at state and federal level leeway to "individualize" processes, decisions, and legal interpretations to address the needs of the communities they serve. However, there is a clear path for a case to go through form a state trial court to the U.S Supreme Court if there are concerns over the violation of the U.S. constitution. An example of a state-level court is the specialized courts that focuses on unique problems affecting a given jurisdiction. This study will explore the path from a state trial court to the U.S. Supreme Court. The paper will also look at specialized courts and describe the role and importance of specialized drug courts in California.
Path a Case can Take from a State Trial Court to the U.S. Supreme Court
There is a clear path for a case to go from a state trial court to the United States Supreme Court. If an individual is arrested and charged by local police, the case is usually heard at a trial court. If the defendant loses the case, the case can be presented to the state's intermediate appellate court (Georgetown University Law Center, 2017). If he/she still loses the case, they can then go to the highest court at the state level, the State Supreme Court. Only if the defendant loses the case at the State Supreme Court and he/she believes that the law used in the case violates the United States Constitution the defendant proceed to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Therefore there is a clear path for a case to move from a state trial court to the U.S. Supreme Court if the defendant feels that the decision made at the State Supreme Court violates the U.S. constitution.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Specialized Courts
Specialized courts or problem-solving courts have continued to be significant features of the United States court environment. Specialized courts are restricted jurisdiction law courts that concentrate on unique crime problems, such as offenders with mental health problems, domestic violence, and drugs (“Chapter 14: Specialized Courts,” 2020). Several critical principles distinguish problem-solving courts. One essential principle is the need for the enhanced information. It refers to specialized knowledge concerning the problem that underwrites criminal behavior and concerning each offender's circumstances and background. Another critical principle focuses on community engagement and collaboration, where judges listen to the community's concern on crime, which influences their decisions. Individualized justice is another important principle which calls for courts to treat defendants as a person instead of looking at them as another case. Another significant principle is accountability and regular compliance monitoring. Defendants in specialized courts are expected to comply with court requirements and complete all mandated educational and treatment programs (“Chapter 14: Specialized Courts,” 2020). The final principle is focusing on case outcomes instead of case processing. The recidivism rates of defendants determine the success of specialized courts.
The establishment of specialized courts offers three key advantages to the United States court environment. Specialized courts are significant because they provide greater efficiency (Gramckow & Walsh, 2013). These courts offer specialized judges, staff, and procedures who are well versed in specialized cases, and this has resulted in efficient processing and streamlined operations. These courts also reduce the caseloads in regular courts. Another significance of specialized courts is that they offer a judiciary of specialists, which results in higher quality decisions, particularly in complex areas of the legislation. Another importance of specialized courts is they enhance the uniformity of decisions in specialized areas (Gramckow & Walsh, 2013). This helps to offer greater confidence and predictability in the courts, which would reduce appeal rates. Therefore, specialized courts are important because they have improved the efficiency of courts.
Specialized Drug Courts in California
Specialized drug courts were established as a feasible alternative for addressing drug cases within the criminal justice system. Specialized drug courts in California were developed to offer non-violent drug criminals with a chance to resolve cases outside the conventional criminal justice system. These courts have been significant because they take special exclusive interest in defendants who benefit from drug rehabilitation. California drug courts are substantial because of their impact on the lives of participants and the community at large (Wolf, 2005). A study conducted on California drug courts revealed that the rates of arrests for offenders decreased by 85% within the first two years after admission to specialized drug courts likened to the two years before entry (Wolf, 2005). The research also revealed that 70% of the offenders of California drug courts were employed after completing set programs compared to a mere 38% before entry. Effectiveness should be prioritized to cost because of drug courts' impact on the offenders and the entire community. It is important to ensure the best cost-benefit balance to guarantee drug courts are effective and affordable. California drug courts must develop mandated educational and treatment programs for offenders to reduce healthcare costs and reduce criminal justice costs by reducing recidivism among offenders.
Conclusion
The dual-court system is made up of two dissimilar court systems: the state courts and federal courts. State-level courts manage the state constitution while the federal courts regulate the state and federal laws. There is a clear path for a case to move from a state trial to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially when the defendant feels that the decision made at the State Supreme Court violates the U.S. constitution. An example of a state court is the specialized court. These courts focus on unique crime problems. Specialized courts are advantageous because they offer greater efficiency, the judiciary of specialists, and enhance the uniformity of decisions. One example of such a court includes specialized drug courts in California that provide non-violent offenders an avenue to resolve cases outside the traditional criminal justice system.
References
Chapter 14: Specialized Courts. (2020). Sage Publication , https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/98943_CHAPTER_14_Specialized_Courts_Hemmens_Criminal_Courts_4e.pdf
Georgetown University Law Center. (2017). Which court is binding? Binding vs. Persuasive cases. The Writing Center, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Which-Court-is-Binding-HandoutFinal.pdf
Gramckow, H., & Walsh, B. (2013). Developing specialized court services. International experiences and lessons learned. Justice and Development Working Paper Series , 24.
Wolf, R. V. (2005). California’s collaborative justice courts. Judicial Council of California , https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California_Story.pdf
