The Court Of Public Opinion

family courts take cases involving all types of family problems. These can be adoption, marriage contracts, marriage, divorce, separation, separation, annulment, alimony, division of property during the marriage, domestic violence, negotiation, decision making, child custody and support, child abduction, kidnapping in person and child abduction accumulate, emancipation, abuse in marriage, parental rights, paternity, that juvenile delinquency, crime, and many of these cases family.

Family courts also deal with regular cases relating to criminal law, property rights related probation law, trusts and so on. But most of the cases that reach the courts are family law divorce, separation, abuse, or child custody. A number of details to consider when it comes to these cases. Family law courts are specialized in all cases, these existing laws.

As you can imagine, the familyPlates> are just some of the busiest courts in America. They deal with social and economic issues so universal that the courts have almost the weight of demand. As a result, family courts are notoriously under-funded. The economically disadvantaged are often on the track in an attempt to win financial compensation for a good cause on the left.

family courts are the subject of much criticism and prejudice. Many think that favors one sex or the other familyCorti. This may not be the case, but may not be able to study because the numbers are so large. Until then, the family courts is a necessary aspect of a society in which people can work around each other at times unfair.

The common law is the collection of rules defined themes of future generations will judge in the King's Courts in all matters of contract and all matters of civil injustice, between the king. This is still the case, as Jamaica real estate market still falls under the control of the king of England.

The law in medieval times was a relatively hard. Every action in the courts of the king was to be started with a quote. Today, it is easy to obtain and to issue a warrant. InBeginning of the story, however, the application almost a magician formula. If false, the self-styled militant, complained one, formerly the judges did not question at all was obtained had been recognized. This limitation can be illustrated as follows:

B Suppose that a complaint had thrown a piece of wood over the garden wall in a street hit on the head, one could obtain application from "Trespass" and his action was initiated. If the complaint has happened aB is the protocol thrown over a few hours before, and A is the dark, he had seen, stumbled over him and broke his leg, could not receive a claim of trespass, because this act was caused only indirectly .

So one should go away without treatment. There was of course a number of different orders, Some other very much, so it is an additional risk that the contenders could even if a court order that the mistake can be fatal to his claim Would get managed.Even assuming, however, that its application on the correct field to begin its mandate has not been artificially smooth.

The current procedure in actions in the royal courts used was very strict and formal. Each step of the procedure were omitted or was incorrectly actions of the applicant, in the absence of results performed. It 'was necessary, so that for a system less rigid in its application of this common law. Normally, when instances such as Jamaica Property for SaleKingston in an auction may appear to stop the proceedings and all transfers of title.

There are further disadvantages of the common law is available in connection with the appeal. Common law the only way was recognized damages: it is assumed that there were no injuries, a sum of money not enough to compensate the plaintiff. Now, the vast majority of the shares of this might be true, but if my neighbor a tannery at the bottom of my notesGarden. I may be more concerned to prevent him from continuing the offensive smell to be the necessary concomitant of tanning appear as required to obtain a sum of money from him.

Although sales for the execution of a contract for a valuable piece of land, B, B may be more interested in the land in return for A breach of contract denied. In both of these facilitated the common law remedy of damages is inadequate and what is really needed is a method of preventionmy neighbor to keep the load in case of first and second cases, the strength of one hand over the land on payment of the price of B.

One can understand now that it was common law system very rigid and disadvantages outweigh the benefits. This process is hampered such as real estate auctions in Kingston Jamaica.

March 8-9, 2004

The case: Plaintiff sues Defendant for negligence in that her 11 year old son shot neighbor plaintiff’s 10 year old daughter with a BB gun. The BB lodged in the girl’s neck. This happened three years ago and the decision was made not to remove the BB, that leaving it there would be harmless.

The Jury: 8 people; three men five women.

Men:

Me-72 years old, former school teacher, liberal democrat.

Laughing fireman, age about 25-makes a joke about everything, always laughing.

Ex-military, reading a Christian bestseller for his church group, age 70′s-pompous and smirking, self-righteous, wants to bring back corporal punishment.

Women:

Artist, in her 20′s, bright, gender not clear, tattoos burned off arms. Conservative, punitive.

Foreperson by assumption- said she was 22 – very overweight math teacher-to-be, takes over, pushes others around, acts coy, talks incessantly.

Well-to-do, married, in her 70′s, very conservative, intelligent.

PE coach and nurse – in her 60′s, tough, coarse, conservative

Married woman, sensible, caring, in her 50′s, conservative.

The suit charged negligence. I felt that was not true. The mother had taught her son to be careful; the gun was kept in her room until she felt she could trust him, that he was not to use it without her being present. Someone else got the gun from the house, an older boy, and the son picked it up, called to the girl who was playing on the fence between the yards and said he was going to shoot, thinking it was empty. The girl turned, the boy shot, the BB hit.

Doctors agree that BB need not be removed and no future problems should arise.

The other 7 jurors were willing to listen to my argument, then ignored it, did not discuss, did not ponder. They had decided she was negligent, even though each one of them recounted a story or two about their own indiscretions as youngsters, and none was willing to say that their mothers were negligent; it’s just the sort of thing that can happen to kids.

The group felt that there was no reason to award a large amount. We (I had been marginalized since I was not a signer, but I was able to participate) calculated the medical bills and added on $10,000 for pain and suffering and possible future surgery; even though three doctors said there would never be any need for it.

We all thought that the attorneys for the plaintiff were obnoxious, ill-prepared and sarcastic. The judge seemed uncomfortable.

When the clerk read the verdict, she had to ask the judge to verify for her that the figure was correct, seemed to find it unbelievably low.

No emotion was registered by anyone in the court, no smile no frown.

Only one of the jurors who signed the verdict was willing to stay and answer questions. She was the caring married woman and she gave a good summary to the lawyers and litigants. I stayed also and told my point of view.

This was the second jury I served on. The first one was an armed robbery case. The verdict was guilty, and I concurred, but the process was hurried and careless. I had to get them to go over the evidence again so we could have a reasonable discussion. Some jurors expressed thanks that we spent more time on it.

It is not fair or reasonable for me to draw any vast conclusion from these two experiences, but it certainly makes me wonder about the jury system.

Post Script: The day after I prepared this article for eZineArticles I received a notice that I have been called up for jury duty, again.

More articles at articles database

Mediation is just one of the forms of dispute resolution that are alternative to litigation through the courts. It helps to have some understanding of the others.

The first two forms of dispute resolution fall outside the ambit of any formal procedures.

The first is avoidance, which is a consciously chosen strategy in response to a perceived conflict. This strategy may be called: Get out of Dodge City. There is nothing wrong with getting out of Dodge City, in the face of a stronger opponent, a prize not worth fighting for, fear of worse, or any other number of motivations. People routinely, and often sensibly, respond to provocation by just ignoring it.

At the other end of the scale of extra-judicial processes, is self-help. Self-help is an action taken by a person designed to affect a resolution of a problem. Self-help includes murder, though not all forms of self-help are illegal. Murder is an effective means of resolving conflict by disposing of the opponent, but it suffers from drawbacks: (1) For most people, there is a moral objections: murder is against one of the Ten Commandments – Thy shalt not kill. (2) Murder is illegal, and the consequences of getting caught can ruin more than ones whole day. (3) Even where there is no organized legal system, there is a debilitating consequence to murder: it often results in a blood feud. Such blood feuds may last from generation to generation, and infect an entire society. Other forms of less drastic self-help may include protesting, striking, theft, and so on.

Both avoidance and self-help share in common that they are unilateral and unorganized. All other forms are more or less organized, and are bilateral or multi-lateral.

Straddling the border between organized and unorganized systems is negotiation. Negotiation is by far the commonest method used in all societies for resolving disputes. Most negotiations take place outside of any formal procedure. Indeed, people engage in negotiations constantly, on a daily basis, as they navigate their way through the day. When a conflict becomes serious enough to involve other people, it moves from the unorganized into the organized area of dispute resolution, and many people retain attorneys or other negotiators to do their negotiating on their behalf.

If negotiations prove unfruitful in terms of affecting resolution, then the parties may simply walk away from the deal. Or, if they cannot, they may resort to arbitration, which is an acknowledged form of alternative dispute resolution, and is very often given legal sanction, meaning that arbitration awards can be enforced in a court of law.

In arbitration, the parties have made the decision that they wish to avoid two features of a court trial. The first is the great expense of litigation; the second is the public nature of litigation. Arbitration is private, and the decision reached by an arbitrator is between the parties to that arbitration only. Generally speaking, arbitration is much cheaper than a fully litigated case. Parties to arbitration also have the luxury of choosing an arbitrator of their own choice, rather than accept whichever judge the court system provides them. Also, in a litigated case, all parties must conform to the schedule laid down by the court, and the courts system consults the convenience of judges more than the convenience of the parties, whereas in an arbitration, the parties can adjust the schedule with the arbitrator according to their own needs and preferences.

However, arbitration shares with the court system one critical feature. The parties to arbitration are not free to craft their own solution to the problem. Instead, they have already agreed that the decision of the arbitrator will be binding upon all parties. In this sense, arbitration is exactly the same as a trial by judge or jury, which also contains the feature that the parties are bound by the decision, and that decision will generally result in a winner and a loser.

Arbitration may be part of the procedure of a litigated case. For example, in California, in an effort initiated by the courts to reduce the size of their own dockets, a case may be ordered into arbitration, to be heard by an arbitrator on the courts list of volunteer arbitrators, with rules set down by the court for conducting an arbitration. However, because there is a constitutional right to proceed to trial by judge or jury, the rules provide that if either party is not intent to abide by the decision of the arbitrator in a court-annexed proceeding, then either party may refuse to accept the arbitrators findings, and instead proceed to trial by requesting what is called a trial de novo, which means a trial as if the arbitration had never occurred. Because of the de novo feature, arbitrations are widely perceived by litigants as being a waste of time, just one more hurdle to jump on the way to court trial, and for this reason, this court-annexed arbitrations have greatly declined in popularity, given way instead to growth in court-annexed mediations.

The great majority of arbitrations are contractual, coming about by reason of a prior agreement between the parties to permit a third person, the arbitrator, to decide the issue between them. The courts are supportive of contractual agreements to arbitration, and the courts will generally uphold arbitration awards. A risk that parties take when they choose an arbitrator to make the decision for them is that the decisions of arbitrators are, in nearly all cases, not subject to any appeal.

The arbitrators decision is final, even if the arbitrator has got the facts wrong, and even if the arbitrator makes a mistake in law. The grounds upon which an arbitrators Award can be challenged are usually very limited, relating to proven corruption, undisclosed conflict of interest, or excess of jurisdiction, on the part of the arbitrator. In this sense, an arbitrator more absolute power than a judge or jury, whose decisions are subject potentially to two levels of appeal.

It does not hurt to be reminded that the court system itself was once an alternative dispute resolution process, which has superseded older forms of dispute resolution, of which may be mentioned trial by battle, trial by ordeal, trial by compurgation, and trial by torture.

Trial by Battle: It used to be thought that in the event of a dispute, the disputants should resolve the issue by battling it out between themselves, and indeed this method still prevails today: Western movies are full of such examples. In addition to the strategy of avoidance (Get out of Dodge City), there is the strategy of confrontation (Gunfight at OK Corral, High Noon) This procedure became formalized in the early middle ages when it became the custom for a disputant to pick a champion to engage in the battle on his behalf. It was still the case that the winner of the battle also won the argument, but the individual disputant did not have to risk his own neck in order to achieve this kind of justice. Knights in medieval times would engage in tournaments, at which they would start at one end of the run, and proceed at full tilt on horseback towards their opponent, also on horseback and wearing heavy armor. The lances would strike the galloping bodies, and if each survived that encounter they would gallop to the other end of the run, and turn in order to face the opposite direction and start again. This turning point was called the tourney, and the knight was said to be at the tourney, or a tourney, from which we derive the modern term attorney.

Trial by Ordeal: Trial by ordeal could be called an unfairly weighted system, often used to try witches. The unfortunate lady would be weighed down with stones in a sack, and thrown into a pond. If she survived, that was by the grace of God, and she was innocent. If she drowned (nearly always the case) that proved she was guilty. If she might be made to grasp burning coals; if by Gods mercy her hand did not blister, she was innocent. It may readily be seen that this kind of trial was used in instances where the allegation was impossible to prove, and women were the likely sufferers.

Trial by Compurgation: Trial by compurgation was an ancient system whereby a disputant would bring forward friends to swear an oath on his behalf that his story was correct. This primitive method of resolving a dispute relied upon the not unsophisticated proposition, in an Age of Faith, that where a person had sworn an oath on the Bible to tell the truth, she would be risking his soul to damnation if she lied. But it appeared that many people were prepared to take that risk in order to help a friend.

Trial by Torture: Finally, trial by torture has always been popular, though not in the arena of civil cases but more in cases of criminal conduct or especially heresy or treason. As it always results in a confession or death, the conviction rate is a hundred percent. But as a means for discovering the truth, it has the disadvantage that people will confess anything under torture, and it is inhuman and revolting. (A person under torture always wants to die. Torture is worse than death. Anonymous Honduran torturer)

The shortcomings of these alternative methods of resolving disputes are obvious, and eventually the common law procedures of trial by judge and jury wholly superseded them in English-speaking countries. Our legal procedures today avoid the appalling risks inherent in trial by battle, ordeal or torture, and even in the days of greatest piety, merely taking an oath could not ensure that the witness would tell the truth. Any yet, our present system suffers from the drawbacks so eloquently set forth by Chief Justice Warren Burger, which accounts for the growth in alternative procedures, of which mediation is perhaps the fastest growing.

Collaborative Law is a fairly new system, well suited to marital dissolution cases, where the parties and their lawyers make an agreement in advance to work out the terms of the divorce collaboratively rather than competitively, meaning without using the abrasive and costly procedures of litigation. What if they cannot? The agreement requires that, if agreement is not attained, then the parties may proceed with litigation but must obtain new attorneys to do so. If the lawyers fail to reach agreement, they are off the case. If the parties must retain new attorneys, it greatly increases costs. Both parties and attorneys thus have strong incentive to reach agreement, and more than that, merely making the collaborative agreement in the first place itself reduces the tension and stress that accompanies the break up of a marriage. Especially where children are involved, a workable continuing relationship between the parents is greatly enhanced by a collaborative process, and so often greatly impaired by the traditional adversarial process.

Of all methods of conflict resolution, only negotiation requires that the disputants talk to each other, even if they choose to do so through a mediator.

All other methods of conflict resolution are essentially unilateral and their common liability is that conflicts handled unilaterally are not really resolved at all.

In searching for justice, one often finds her in the company of her retarded little sister whose name is revenge.

More articles at article database

At arraignment, the District Attorney may offer a plea to a lesser charge than what you were arrested for originally. Pleas are offered to unburden an extremely congested criminal court calendar, as well as to get rid of lesser criminal cases so the District Attorney can rightfully concentrate on the more serious crimes.

If you were arrested for misdemeanor shoplifting and you arrive at the arraignment with no prior arrests, most likely the District Attorney will offer you the option of pleading guilty to a lesser violation and a few days of community service with a fine. You have the option to end the process by accepting the lower charge of a violation, which is not a crime but will appear on your record in the future.

If you accept the plea then you will actually plead guilty to a lesser offense on the record and the court will most likely impose a fine and community service or counseling, depending upon what you and the District Attorney agreed to.

If you dont accept the plea, you will simply plead not guilty and continue your criminal court appearances. Your attorney will file various motions and hold hearings to discover what evidence the District Attorney has against you or to get the charges dismissed. An example of such a hearing would be called a Huntley Hearing. In that hearing your attorney’s objective is to get any incriminating statements you made suppressed, meaning they can not be used against you. The point of that hearing is that the police obtained statements from you invlountarily. At the hearing your attorney will cross-examine the police involved in your arrest by asking them detailed questions. If your attorney can prove your statements were coerced or obtained form you in some way involuntarily then you have just eliminiated a criucial piece of evidence against you, making your case of innocence stronger.

As you proceed further through the criminal court process, the plea to a lesser charge may or may not be offered again. Whether or not you accept a plea is something only you and your attorney can decide, based upon your circumstances. Just remember that the plea will always be on your record as opposed to fighting the charges if youre innocent and getting the whole criminal case dismissed, clearing your name.

Your Criminal Court Appearances

If you plead not guilty and are released ROR (meaning without bail and on your own recognizance) or on bail, youll be given the next date to appear before the court. At that time the court will set deadlines for your attorney to complete certain work on your behalf.

The District Attorney has a limited period of time to complete his investigation and state on the record he is ready for trial. The time limits are mandatory to protect your constitutional right to a speedy trial. So you should be prepared to quickly prove your innocence. Being accused of a crime is a stigma, and the reality is that you are actually presumed guilty until you prove your innocence (contrary to the belief that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty).

If you miss a court appearance, a warrant for your arrest is issued

Your Right To A Speedy Trial

The time for you to get a speedy trial starts running from the date the criminal complaint is filed against you. A trial for a violation must be held within 30 days. A misdemeanor trial must occur within 90 days. A felony trial must take place within six months.

The time periods for a speedy trial are tolled (stopped) because of certain motions made by your attorney or certain hearings. They are not tolled if the District Attorney requests adjournments without your consent. They are also not tolled if the District Attorney is not ready for certain appearance dates. This is called excludable time for the purposes of determining when a trial must be held.

Making A Record

At each court date, there will be a stenographer typing every word of the proceeding to make a record of it. Your attorney must make sure the record is clear that you do not consent to an adjournment or that the District Attorney was not ready. Being clear is important, because the court is overwhelmed with hundreds of cases a day. Sometimes the judge will not keep a good record or his notes on your file will be unreadable and the judge later cant recall what happened.

To be clear and to protect your rights, state on the record that defendant does not consent to the adjournment and time should be charged to the People or state that The District Attorney is not ready and time should be charged to the People. Make sure the stenographer hears what you say because you may later have to order those records from the stenographer to prove what happened at the hearing. If the stenographer did not hear you or your attorney then you will not have a record that will benefit you. Make sure you both speak loud and clear at each court date to protect your record.

Law Offices of Susan Chana Lask
853 Broadway, Suite 1516
New York, NY 10003
(212) 358-5762
2004 Susan Chana Lask All Rights Reserved

More articles at article database

A Cup of Tea, Coffee, or Something Else www.quiettable.com

Whenever investigating an individual or business, one of the most basic checks is for lawsuits, criminal charges, and bankruptcy filings. But how do you research the court system? Is there one simple site to go to where you pop in a name and are rewarded with a listing of all court filings across the country pertaining to that individual? No such luck … yet, anyway! To understand court research, you first need to understand a bit about the USA’s court system.

There are two major separate court entities in the USA, the State court system and the Federal court system. The Federal court system is divided into three branches, the federal criminal, civil, bankruptcy, and appeals courts. These courts are not ‘single entities’ — there are a number of federal courts scattered across the United States, each covering a certain geographic district within a ‘circuit’. For a map of the circuits, see www.uscourts.gov/images/CircuitMap.pdf.

For example, there is a Northern Mississippi district court, as well as a Southern. Cases are prosecuted by US Attorneys, who are elected, or Assistant US Attorneys, who are government employees. Regarding federal law, federal statutes are divided into sections called Titles. Title 11, for example, deals with bankcruptcy, and under that Title you will find Chapters, such as Chapter 7 regarding liquidation of a business. All personal and business bankruptcies fall under federal statutes and are dealt with in federal court, and bankruptcies make up nearly 70% of all federal court cases. This makes researching whether an individual has a history of bankcruptcy a considerably simpler matter, since only the relevant federal court needs to be searched.

Title 18 contains the majority of the criminal statutes for the federal criminal court. Note that in many cases it can be decided for an individual to be tried in the federal rather than State court system, under federal-question jurisdiction rules, for a variety of reasons. For example, in a recent case where two teens burned a cross in a black family’s yard, it was decided to prosecute them in federal rather than State court — the penalties that could be imposed by the federal court system were greater. Likewise, cases involving citizens from different States will be tried in Federal courts if the monetary amount involved in the case is greater than $75,000. There are a number of other types of cases that are likewise defaulted to federal court, including cases involving patents or copyrights, cases challenging State laws (usually for Constitutional reasons), and cases involving federal agencies.

The State court system is somewhat more complex in its terminology, since this terminology differs from State to State, but in the end the terminology resolves into a system of ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ courts in civil and criminal matters. The State civil court was an ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ court, as does the State criminal court. In some States, these are referred to as the ‘supreme’ and ‘county’ courts, or the ‘superior’ and ‘justice’ courts.

The upper courts tend to deal with more important subjects, or crimes with stiffer penalties (such as armed robbery, cases of gross malpractice, and often divorce). Lower courts will deal with misdemeanor crimes and small money claims (ie, small claims court). In criminal cases of all sorts, the prosecutor is usually the United States government (from the State’s attorney office), and the case will be lised as The State of Wherever V. Lastname.

Upper and lower courts are relatively simple to understand — big money cases or cases involving serious crimes go the upper, and everything of lesser importance to the lower, but don’t forget that most divorces are tried in the upper court! Unfortunately, the State court system doesn’t stop there, but also includes, depending on the State, a variety of other courts such as the municipal court or traffic court, which handle matters specific to their speciality (ie, argue traffic tickets in traffic court). There are also appellate courts, for dealing with appeals.

So, now that we understand the court system a bit better, how do we go about finding court records? For Federal courts, this is a relatively simple matter: The majority of records are accessible through a system called PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). PACER allows searching different courts by a variety of fields, including name. You as a citizen can sign up for PACER with a credit card at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ — the service isn’t free, but only charges a few dollars for good documentation on most cases. Note that some districts still aren’t in the PACER system (for example, the Alaska district court) — in this case, you can always pay a visit to the nearest district federal courthouse.

Every district has one, and the records should be open to the public for free. Feel free to drive there and peruse! If the district court is further than you want to travel, there are courthouse researchers across the country who make a living looking up court records for those to far away from the court to visit in person.

State records are somewhat more complex. To access these records over the Internet, not only should the State records be online, but also the individual county in question. Most State higher court and appellate courts are online with free searching, but many lower (county) courts are not, only offer some records, or charge high fees. Of course, if you’re only interested in researching cases in your area, all you need to do is drive to your local county courthouse, where the records are, by Federal law, public access. Your county courthouse should not charge you a fee to access these records, they should be free to peruse.

Charging a fee online is for ‘electronic access’, not for seeing the actual documents themselves. Once again, if the county is outside your area you can hire a courtresearcher to do the job for you. To find county court researches and county/State courts on the Internet, simply do a search engine search for ‘Countyname county court’, and follow the links from there.

More articles at article database

Nothing is more frustrating than trying to search for news about a specific trial, especially when the mainstream media isnt interested. Now, Case Watchers keeps readers apprised in an easy to read format.

Updated daily, Case Watchers provides a summary of the case, links to the latest news stories and comments from readers. Our hottest and most frustrating current trial is the case against Francis Zarro accused of casino fraud in NY. News about this trial has been difficult to find, but our readers are great about letting us know when news is breaking. Other interesting cases include the man with nine wives, a judge on trial for bribery, the Tri-State Crematory case, a teen accused of killing his grandparents, the Seattle spammer trial, two serial killers, hired hits and many, many more. New cases are regularly added and are often suggested by readers.

The Jerry Dean trial, covered by Court TV, ended well before the story aired and we were there first. Jerry Dean was accused of killing a woman who filed a sexual harassment charge against him. However, the jury acquitted Mr. Dean and the case remains unsolved. Another troubling case is the Deer Hunters Trial involving the Duvall brothers. Although this case is closed, it remains active to capture the post criminal trial civil cases, such as the wife of the victim suing the wife of the defendant.

In addition, Case Watchers brings new attention to the plight of missing people. To date, we have eleven cold cases profiled and are offering awards to those willing to sponsor a missing person page by adding a link to their home page. In addition to the profile pages, each missing person has a poster page readers can print and distribute in their area. Families of other missing people are invited to send us a link for our Missing page.

Casewatcher.com is owned and operated by Marti Talbott, author of: Colorado Cold Case the Botham/Miracle Murders.

More articles at article database

Anatomy of a Lawsuit

Learning the anatomy of civil lawsuits is as easy as spelling CAT.

Complaint – Answer – Trial

It’s as simple as that!

Master this simple truth and you will soon be operating successfully in court.

Plaintiffs file complaints.

Defendants file answers.

Judges examine the facts and law at trial to decide who wins.

It’s not difficult if you keep these three steps in mind.

Every lawsuit has this same fundamental anatomy.

Complaint. Answer. Trial.

If you can spell CAT, you can master the basics.

C = Complaint Where the case begins, when the plaintiff complains.

A = Answer Where the defendant responds to the plaintiffs complaint.

T = Trial Where the judge (or jury) decides the final verdict.

After the plaintiff files his complaint, the defendant may file a flurry of motions that seek to have the complaint stricken or dismissed so he need not answer.

If the flurry of motions fails, the defendant must answer the complaint.

Once the defendant is compelled to answer the complaint (and sometimes before) both parties are permitted to engage in discovery of evidence procedures, i.e., to demand production of documents and things, to require the other side to admit facts and law under oath, to ask relevant questions of anyone, to put evidence on the public record, and to attempt to settle the case and avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty of going to trial.

If the parties cannot settle their dispute during the discovery phase, the court must examine the evidence, hear testimony, consider arguments of law, and render its final judgment.

Its just that simple.

By knowing this, you can write a powerful complaint or avoid filing an answer by moving the court to dismiss or strike the complaint or require a confusing or poorly worded complaint to be re-written. You can get the evidence you need with effective discovery tools, getting facts into evidence,demanding your rights, and forcing the court to do what’s right … according to law.

The anatomy of a lawsuit is no more complicated than this. CAT. By knowing the basics you strengthen your case.

Resolve conflicts peaceably, according to the rules that control both judges and lawyers in our courts.

More articles at article database

Our current jury system is ailing. It is beginning to fail us. O.J. Simpson being found not guilty is just one example of that problem. People with loads of evidence against them are found not guilty, while others with far less evidence against them are found guilty. Mass murderers are often sentenced to life in prison, while many others who commit just one murder are sentenced to death. People tried separately for the same crime often get much different verdicts and/or much different sentences. I know the Constitution guarantees the accused a right to a jury of his or her peers, but times have changes over the last 200-plus years and we need to make adjustments accordingly. There are two changes I would suggest we make as soon as possible.

First, we should implement professional juries. There are many reasons why the average person should not serve on a jury. Many of them do not want to serve and find it to be an inconvenience. People with this attitude are likely to focus more on getting the trial over with rather than taking the time to come to reasonable and thoughtful decision. Other people come to a jury with an agenda. They have strong opinions one way or the other about the defendant and/or the case, but will mask these feelings in order to get a seat on the jury. These people are unlikely to be persuaded by evidence which runs counter to their preconceived notions.

Of course, there are many jurors who feel that it is their civic duty to serve and make an honest attempt to seek the truth. But even these people often make flawed jurors. Very often they will use things such as defendants’ courtroom demeanor, the way they dress, the emotions they show or the lack thereof, their facial expressions, etc. to help determine guilt or innocence. So what if someone seems arrogant in court? So what if they show no emotion? So what if they dress inappropriately in the courtroom? While it might be appropriate to take some of these items into consideration at sentencing time, none of these issues make a person any more or any less guilty and should not be considered as a part of making that determination. Professional juries would be trained to disregard everything but the facts when determining whether someone is guilty of a crime. It would be their fulltime job and if they had any kind of agenda, it would come to light over time. They would also be subject to a judicial review board on a regular basis to re-evaluate their fitness as professional jurors.

Second, we should put an end to the deliberating process. Jurors should not be allowed to speak with one another and should vote their conscience by secret ballot. This is needed because many jurors do not have the courage of conviction to vote what they really think, but are often intimidated into voting with the majority or with those who are the most persuasive or strong-willed. Of course, a change like this would make a unanimous verdict almost impossible, so a two-thirds majority should be required for a guilty verdict. Anything less would result in the defendant being found not guilty. There would be no hung juries. In the case of sentencing (except for death penalty cases), a simple majority would determine the sentence, with the judge acting as a tie-breaker. A three-quarters majority would be required to sentence someone to death. If a majority, however less than the required three-quarters, votes in favor of death, the next harshest available sentence would automatically be imposed, regardless of the other votes.

Having an impartial jury reach a just verdict along with making sure an innocent person is never convicted should be the ultimate goal of our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, our jury system is broken and doesn’t deliver this desired outcome nearly often enough. It is due for a much needed overhaul in the form of the changes I have suggested.

More articles at article database

A proposal for a new law is called a bill. Bills may be introduced in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords by any member. In practice most bills are proposed by the Government. After being discussed and perhaps changed, the bill is sent to the other House to go through the same process. When both Houses agree on a text, the bill is sent to the Queen for her signature (or Royal Assent) at which point it becomes an Act of Parliament. A bill which has been passed by the House of Commons is almost certain to become law. About fifty bills become Acts each year. The House of Lords can revise bills but it can not stop them from becoming Acts; it can only delay the process. The Royal Assent is a formality: no sovereign has refused a bill since 1707.

The Legal System

British law comes from two main sources: laws made in Parliament and Common Law, which is based on previous judgments and customs. Just as there is no written constitution, so Britain has no criminal code or civil code and the interpretation or the law is based on what has happened in the past. The laws which are made in Parliament are interpreted by the courts, but changes in the law itself are made in Parliament.

The most common type of law court in Britain is the magistrates court. There are 700 magistrates courts and about 30 000 magistrates.

More serious criminal cases then go to the crown Court, which has 90 branches in different towns and cities. Civil cases (for example, divorce or bankruptcy cases) are dealt with in County courts. Appeals are heard by higher courts. For example, appeals from magistrates courts are heard in the Crown Court, unless they are appeals on points of law. The highest court of appeal in England and Wales is the House of Lords. (Scotland has its own High Court in Edinburgh, which hears all appeals from Scottish courts). Certain cases may be referred to the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg.

People in Law Cases

Solicitors

There are about 50 000 solicitors in Great Britain, a number of which is rapidly increasing. They are found in every town, where they deal with all the day-to-day work of preparing legal documents for buying and selling houses, making wills, etc. Solicitors also work on court cases for their clients, prepare cases for barristers to present in the higher courts, and may represent their client in a magistrates court.

Barristers

There about 500 barristers who defend or prosecute in the higher courts. Although solicitors and barristers work together on cases, barristers specialize in representing clients in court and the training for two types of lawyer is quite separate.

In court, barristers wear wigs and gowns in keeping with the extreme formality of the proceedings. The highest level of barristers has the little QC (Queens Counsel).

Judges and Magistrates

There are few hundred judges, trained as barristers, who preside in more serious cases. There is no separate training for judges.

There are about 30 000 magistrates (Justices if the Peace, or JPs), who judge cases in the lower courts. They are usually unpaid and have no formal legal qualifications but they are respectable and honored people.

Jury

A jury consists of twelve people (jurors), who are ordinary people chosen at random from the Electoral Register (the list of people who can vote in elections). The jury listens to the evidence given in court in certain criminal cases and decides whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. If the person is found guilty, the punishment is passed by the presiding judge. Juries are rarely use din civil cases.

More articles at article database