Who Enforces The Law In Court?

Case law is law based on judicial decisions and opinions, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. It is the collection of reported cases that form the body of law within a given jurisdiction. In the US, both the state and federal court systems are divided into trial courts and appellate courts. Trial courts determine the facts of a dispute and apply the law to these facts, while appellate courts review trial court decisions to ensure the law was applied correctly. A court does not have to stand by a decision that is not binding precedent, but generally, they will follow the decisions of higher courts in their jurisdiction.

The role of judges in applying the law

Judges are responsible for applying the law in a court case. They do so by interpreting the law and considering the facts of the case to reach a decision. This process is known as "applying the law" or "judicial decision-making". Judges have a very important role in the legal system as their decisions can set precedents that must be followed in future similar cases.

Interpreting the law

Judges interpret the law by considering the legislation (or statute) and any previous cases that have been decided on the same or similar issues (case law or common law). They may also consider other sources, such as legal scholarship, to inform their interpretation. This interpretation is essential as it determines the legal rules that will be applied in the case.

Considering the facts

Judges consider the facts of the case by reviewing the evidence presented and assessing the credibility of witnesses. They may also take into account any relevant social or political context. This fact-finding process is crucial as it determines how the legal rules will be applied in the case.

Reaching a decision

Judges reach a decision by applying the interpreted legal rules to the facts of the case. This decision-making process involves judgment and discretion as judges must weigh up various factors and arguments to determine the outcome. Their decisions can take many forms, including verdicts in criminal cases or rulings on specific issues in civil cases.

Setting precedents

Judges' decisions in court cases can set precedents that must be followed in future similar cases. This principle is known as "stare decisis", which means "to stand by things decided". Lower courts generally must follow the decisions of higher courts, and all courts must follow the decisions of the highest court in their jurisdiction. However, there may be valid reasons for a court to deviate from precedent in certain circumstances.

Ensuring fairness and justice

Ultimately, judges have a responsibility to ensure that the law is applied fairly and justly. They must act impartially and independently, considering the interests of all parties involved. This role is crucial in maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of the legal system.

The role of juries in applying the law

Juries are an integral part of the criminal trial process, and their role should not be underestimated. The jury system enables citizens to participate in the legal system and is central to the justice system in many countries, including Australia, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. In these countries, juries are commonly used in criminal and civil cases to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render impartial verdicts.

The role of a jury is often described as that of a finder of fact, while the judge is responsible for interpreting the law and instructing the jury accordingly. Juries determine the truth or falsity of factual allegations and render a verdict on the guilt or civil liability of the defendant. This process is known as a "trial by jury" and is considered a fundamental right in many legal systems.

In criminal cases, the jury's duty is to weigh the evidence presented during the trial and determine whether it satisfies the charged criminal offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury will hear each side's opening statements, facts of the case, prosecution's evidence, and the defendant's potential defenses. Cross-examination, where the prosecution and defense attempt to undermine the credibility of each other's witnesses, is often one of the most influential parts of a trial. After hearing all the evidence and considering the judge's instructions, the jury retires for deliberation and attempts to reach a consensus verdict.

The majority required for a verdict varies depending on the jurisdiction. In some cases, the jury must reach a unanimous decision, while in others, a majority or supermajority is sufficient. If the jury cannot agree on a verdict, it is referred to as a hung jury, and a mistrial may be declared.

In addition to their role in criminal cases, juries are also used in some civil cases, such as defamation, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. However, the use of juries in civil cases varies by jurisdiction and is generally less common than in criminal cases.

One of the primary strengths of the jury system is that it acts as a check on prosecutorial power and helps ensure a fair and impartial trial. By having a group of individuals from the community decide the case, prosecutors are less likely to bring unreasonable charges, as they know their case will be evaluated by a jury. Additionally, the use of juries can enhance fairness by reducing the influence of politics or public opinion on judicial decisions.

However, one limitation of the jury system is that jurors, as laypeople, may struggle to understand complicated legal concepts and apply them to the case at hand. This can make jury trials time-consuming and challenging, and it is not uncommon for jurors to have difficulty staying engaged throughout the entire trial.

The hierarchy of courts and how this affects the application of the law

The hierarchy of courts refers to the structure of authority within a country's judicial system, with some courts having higher authority than others. This hierarchy influences the application of the law, as lower courts are bound to follow the decisions and precedents set by higher courts.

In federal systems, such as in the United States and India, the court system is divided into federal and state/provincial levels, each with its own hierarchy. At the federal level, the highest court is typically called the Supreme Court, and its decisions are binding on all lower federal courts and state courts on matters of constitutional interpretation and federal law. Below the Supreme Court are appellate or appeals courts, which review decisions of lower courts to ensure the correct application of the law. The lowest level in the federal hierarchy is the trial or district court, which hears cases and applies the law to the facts of the case.

In the United States, there are 13 appellate courts, each covering a specific region, and 94 district courts. The federal judiciary operates independently from the executive and legislative branches but collaborates with them as required by the Constitution.

In India, the Supreme Court has original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. Below the Supreme Court are the High Courts, which have jurisdiction over their respective states or regions. The lowest level is composed of District Courts, which handle judicial matters at the district level and are controlled by the High Courts.

State court systems in the US and India also follow a hierarchical structure. In the US, each state generally has three levels of courts: the state Supreme Court, the District Court or County Court, and the Local Court. In India, the structure varies by state, but some states have High Courts with jurisdiction over multiple states or territories.

The hierarchy of courts is important because it establishes a clear chain of authority for the application and interpretation of the law. Lower courts follow the precedents set by higher courts, ensuring consistency and uniformity in legal decisions. This hierarchy also allows for a system of checks and balances, as lower court decisions can be reviewed and corrected by higher courts if necessary.

The use of case law in applying the law

Case law is law based on judicial decisions and precedents set by previous rulings on a particular issue or topic. It is used interchangeably with common law and is distinct from statutory law, which is based on constitutions, and regulatory law, which is based on statutes. Case law concerns unique disputes resolved by courts using the concrete facts of a case, whereas statutes and regulations are written abstractly.

In the US, case law is developed from judicial opinions or decisions over time. Each branch of government produces a different type of law. While case law is based on judicial decisions, statutory law comes from legislative bodies and administrative law comes from executive bodies.

Case law differs from one jurisdiction to another. For example, a case in New York would not be decided using case law from California. Instead, New York courts will rely on binding precedent from their jurisdiction. If no previous decisions on the issue exist, New York courts might look at precedents from a different jurisdiction, which would be considered persuasive authority rather than binding authority.

Federalism also plays a role in determining the authority of case law in a particular court. Each circuit has its own set of binding case law. A judgment rendered in one circuit will not be binding in another but will have persuasive authority. However, decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States are binding on all federal courts and on state courts regarding issues of the Constitution and federal law.

The differences between common law and civil law systems in applying the law

In a court case, the judge applies the law. The role of the judge is to determine which precedents apply to a particular case and to ensure stability and consistency in the legal justice system.

Now, to understand the differences between common law and civil law systems in applying the law, it's important to know that common law and civil law are the two primary legal systems in the world, with most countries adopting features from one or the other.

Common Law System

Common law, also known as case law, is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. It draws from institutionalized opinions and interpretations of judicial authorities and public juries. Common law originated in England and is now used in the United States, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

• There may not be a written constitution or codified laws.
• Judicial decisions are binding and can only be overturned by the same court or through legislation.
• It allows for extensive freedom of contract, with few provisions implied into the contract by law.
• It follows the principle that everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited by law.
• It is less prescriptive than the civil law system, allowing for interpretation and adaptation of the law to new situations.
• Contracts tend to be longer because all terms governing the relationship between parties must be explicitly stated.
• It emphasizes precedent while allowing some freedom for interpretation.

Civil Law System

The civil law system, on the other hand, is a comprehensive, codified set of legal statutes created by legislators. It provides a clear framework for cases that can be brought to court, the procedures for handling claims, and the punishment for offenses. Civil law originated in continental Europe, particularly in countries influenced by Roman law, such as France, Germany, and Italy.

Key features of the civil law system include:

• A written constitution based on specific codes, such as civil code, corporate law, administrative law, tax law, and constitutional law.
• Only legislative enactments are considered binding for all.
• There is less scope for judge-made law, although judges tend to follow previous judicial decisions.
• It is more prescriptive than the common law system.
• Contracts tend to be shorter because many provisions are implied by law, and parties don't need to state all terms explicitly.
• It aims for standardized codes to create order and reduce bias in the application of laws.

In summary, the common law system values precedent and interpretation, while the civil law system emphasizes codification and standardization. The common law system provides more flexibility in interpretation and contract freedom, while the civil law system offers a more detailed and consistent set of rules and regulations.

Frequently asked questions