Points: 200 Case Study 1: Understanding the Court System Unacceptable Meets Minimum Expectation s Fair Proficient Exemplary Below 60% F 60-69% D 70-79% C 80-89% B 90-100% A Did not submit or incompletely summarized the seminal facts of the case that you chose. Insufficiently summarized the seminal facts of the case that you chose. Partially summarized the seminal facts of the case that you chose. Satisfactorily summarized the seminal facts of the case that you chose. Thoroughly summarized the seminal facts of the case that you chose. 2. Explain the main laws that have been violated in the case that you chose. Weight: 15% Did not submit or incompletely explained the main laws that have been violated in the case that you chose. Insufficiently explained the main laws that have been violated in the case that you chose. Partially explained the main laws that have been violated in the case that you chose. Satisfactorily explained the main laws that have been violated in the case that you chose. Thoroughly explained the main laws that have been violated in the case that you chose. 3. Describe the possible penalties that could be associated with the laws that you just described. Did not submit or incompletely described the possible penalties that could be associated with the laws that you just described. Insufficiently described the possible penalties that could be associated with the laws that you just described. Partially described the possible penalties that could be associated with the laws that you just described. Satisfactorily described the possible penalties that could be associated with the laws that you just described. Thoroughly described the possible penalties that could be associated with the laws that you just described. Did not submit or incompletely explained whether your specific case was heard in the state or federal court system, and did not submit or incompletely included any related jurisdictional requirements. Did not submit or incompletely Insufficiently explained whether your specific case was heard in the state or federal court system, and insufficiently included any related jurisdictional requirements. Insufficiently explained the fundamental Partially explained whether your specific case was heard in the state or federal court system, and partially included any related jurisdictional requirements. Partially explained the fundamental Satisfactorily explained whether your specific case was heard in the state or federal court system, and satisfactorily included any related jurisdictional requirements. Satisfactorily explained the fundamental Thoroughly explained whether your specific case was heard in the state or federal court system, and thoroughly included any related jurisdictional requirements. Thoroughly explained the fundamental Criteria 1. Summarize the seminal facts of the case that you chose. Weight: 10% Weight: 15% 4. Explain whether your specific case was heard in the state or federal court system, and include any related jurisdictional requirements. Explain the fundamental reasons why it was necessary for the case to be heard in that particular court system. Weight: 15% 5. Summarize the outcome of the case, and indicate whether the judge or jury made the decision. Weight: 15% 6. Discuss whether or not you believe that the outcome of the case was justified. Provide a rationale for the response. Weight: 15% 7. 3 references explained the fundamental reasons why it was necessary for the case to be heard in that particular court system. reasons why it was necessary for the case to be heard in that particular court system. reasons why it was necessary for the case to be heard in that particular court system. reasons why it was necessary for the case to be heard in that particular court system. reasons why it was necessary for the case to be heard in that particular court system. Did not submit or incompletely summarized the outcome of the case, and did not submit or incompletely indicated whether the judge or jury made the decision. Insufficiently summarized the outcome of the case, and insufficiently indicated whether the judge or jury made the decision. Partially summarized the outcome of the case, and partially indicated whether the judge or jury made the decision. Satisfactorily summarized the outcome of the case, and satisfactorily indicated whether the judge or jury made the decision. Thoroughly summarized the outcome of the case, and thoroughly indicated whether the judge or jury made the decision. Did not submit or incompletely discussed whether or not you believe that the outcome of the case was justified. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale for the response. Insufficiently discussed whether or not you believe that the outcome of the case was justified. Insufficiently provided a rationale for the response. Partially discussed whether or not you believe that the outcome of the case was justified. Partially provided a rationale for the response. Satisfactorily discussed whether or not you believe that the outcome of the case was justified. Satisfactorily provided a rationale for the response. Thoroughly discussed whether or not you believe that the outcome of the case was justified. Thoroughly provided a rationale for the response. No references provided Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices. Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices. Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices. More than 8 errors present 7-8 errors present 5-6 errors present 3-4 errors present 0-2 errors present Weight: 5% 8. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10% Running Head: THE COURT SYSTEM 1 The Court System Your name Institutional Affiliations THE COURT SYSTEM 2 Case Study 1: Understanding the Court System The U.S. Court System is a complex system that includes both federal and state-level courts. The federal system includes the judicial branch of the government. This system is designed to help society interpret the U.S. Constitution and provide guidelines for society. Court cases may concern many different topics and have an unlimited number of outcomes. Use the Internet or Strayer databases to research a civil or criminal court case in which you are interested. A civil case starts when a human being or entity, described the plaintiff, maintains that another human being or entity has unsuccessful to take out a legal responsibility owed to the petitioner. Both the petitioner as well as the defendant is too submitted to as "parties" or "plaintiffs." A human being accused of an offense is generally charged in a proper accusation described a denunciation or information. The rule, on behalf of the public of the America, indicts the case during the United States legal representative's Office if the being is stimulating with a federal offense A state's legal representative's office accuse state crimes. It is not the wonder's responsibility to bring a wrong case. In a snatching case, for example, the government would act against the snatcher; the wounded would not be a bash to the action.[Civ14] Summarize the seminal facts of the case that you chose. A case of Gerald Gault, whose age 15, was on trial in Arizona for a small property crime when, in 1965, was taken into custody as the effect of a moan that he had made vulgar THE COURT SYSTEM 3 telephone calls. Behind hearings by a young court moderator, Gerald was instructed committed to the State Business School as a young criminal until he should arrive at majority. Plaintiffs brought a habeas body act in the state courts to confront the legitimately of the Arizona childish Code as well as the process really used in Gerald's case, scheduled the ground of rejection of a variety of procedural due procedure civil rights. And the State Supreme Court confirmed dismissal of the court order. Agreeing that the legitimate guarantee of due procedure applies to actions in which infantile are charged as criminals, the court supposed that the Arizona infantile Code impliedly consist of the needs of due procedure in delinquency actions, as well as that such due procedure requirements were not affronted by the process leading to Gerald's obligation. Gerald was then still topic to a five months' trial order which had been entered on March, as a consequence of his having been in the corporation of another young man who had stolen a pocket purse from a woman's purse. The control action on April 8 was taken as the effect of a verbal protest by a neighbour of the Childs. At the instance Gerald was chosen up, his mother as well as father was equally at work. No see that Gerald was individual taken into protection was left at the house. No other actions were taken to counsel them that their child had, in result, been arrested. Explain the main laws that have been violated in the case that you chose. The Gault and Winship case in custody that State law cannot discontinue the press from distributing a juvenile's first name that it obtained separately of the court. Even if the decision did not clutch that the push should have right of entry to infantile court files, it detained that if information about a infantile case is legally attained by the media, the primary amendment attention in a free press takes priority over the interests in protecting the anonymity of THE COURT SYSTEM 4 infantile defendants. The violation of law shall be delighted as if it not at all occurred.\"[Ken99] The appeal sought the liberate of Gerald Francis Gault, plaintiffs' 15-year-old child, who had been devoted as a infantile delinquent to the State developed School by the infantile Court of Gila district, Arizona. The superlative Court of Arizona stated dismissal of the court order against various point of view which included an assault upon the legitimately of the Arizona Juvenile Code for the reason that of its alleged rejection of bureaucratic due procedure rights to infantile charged with being "criminals." The court decided that the legitimate guarantee of due procedure of law is related in such actions. It in custody that Arizona's infantile Code is to be interpret as "impliedly" apply the "due procedure perception." It then carry on to identify as well as explain "the particular basics which constitute due procedure in a infantile hearing." It completed that the actions ending in obligation of Gerald Gault did not insult those obligations. Describe the possible penalties that could be associated with the laws that you just described. The possible penalties that could be associated with the laws for violating the Sherman law can be used. Although mainly enforcement proceedings are common, the Sherman law is also an illegal law, as well as individuals along with businesses that infringe it may be indicted by the Department of honesty. Criminal actions are typically restricted to intentional as well as clear violations like as when participants fix prices or fix bids. The Sherman law imposes wrong penalties of like $90 million for a company and $1 million for a person, beside with up to 9 years in jail. Beneath federal act, the greatest fine may be enlarged to twice the total the schemers gained from the illegitimate acts or double the money misplaced by the wounded of the offense, if also of those amounts is in excess of $100 million. THE COURT SYSTEM 5 The Federal Trade Commission law forbids "unfair process of competition" as well as "unfair or misleading laws." The Supreme Court has held that all infringements of the Sherman law also infringe the FTC law. Thus, while the FTC law does not officially enforce the Sherman law, it can bring cases beneath the FTC law against the similar kinds of behavior that infringe the Sherman law. The FTC law also reaches further practices that damage competition, except that might not fit carefully into categories of performs formally forbidden by the Sherman law. Only the FTC law brings cases beneath the FTC law.[The14] Explain whether your specific case was heard in the state or federal court system, and include any related jurisdictional requirements. The State Supreme Court stated dismissal of the court order. Agreeing that the legitimate guarantee of suitable process applies to actions in which infantile are charged as criminals, the court detained that the Arizona infantile Code impliedly consist of the requirements of due procedure in delinquency actions, along with that such suitable procedure necessities were not affronted by the process leading to Gerald's obligation. The Supreme Court or federal court system of Arizona in custody that due procedure of law is necessary to the legitimate validity of actions in which a court achieve the conclusion that a infantile has been at responsibility, has engaged in ways prohibited by rule, or has or else be bad, with the result that he is dedicated to an organization in which his liberty is curtailed. This end is in accord with the choice of a number of judges under equally federal as well as state constitutions. In their jurisdictional requirements, appellants do not advise upon us every of the points accepted upon by the federal as well as Supreme Court of Arizona. They advise that we hold the infantile Code of Arizona unacceptable on its countenance or as useful in this case since, contrary to the suitable procedure Clause of the Fifteenth Amendment, the infantile is taken THE COURT SYSTEM 6 from the detention of his parents as well as committed to a federal as well as state institution pursuant to actions in which the infantile Court has almost unlimited judgment, as well as in which the subsequent basic civil rights are denied: 1. Observe of the charges; 2. Rule to counsel; 3. Rule to confrontation as well as cross-examination; 4. Privilege alongside self-incrimination; 5. Right to a copy of the actions; as well as 6. Right to appellate reconsider.[HAR14] Explain the fundamental reasons why it was necessary for the case to be heard in that particular court system. The fundamental reasons why it was necessary for the case to be heard in that particular court system are some special difficulties may arise with value to waiver of the freedom by or on behalf of kids, as well as there may well be a number of differences in system but not in rule depending upon the period of the infant and the attendance and proficiency of parents. If advice was not present for a number of permissible reasons when an access was obtained, the maximum care should be taken to promise that the access was voluntary. Against the request to juveniles of the accurate to silence, it is disputed that juvenile events are "civil," as well as not "illegal," and therefore the freedom should not relate. It is accurate that the declaration of the freedom in the Fifth alteration, which is appropriate to the States by cause of the Fourteenth alteration, is that no someone "shall be forced in any illegal case to be a witness beside himself." On the other hand, it is also obvious that the accessibility of the THE COURT SYSTEM 7 freedom does not turn upon the kind of arranged in which its defence is invoked, except upon the environment of the declaration or admission as well as the disclosure which it invites. The freedom against self-incrimination is, linked to the query of the safeguards essential to assure that admittance or confessions are sensibly reliable, that they are not the simple fruits of dread or compulsion, but are dependable expressions of the reality. Summarize the outcome of the case, and indicate whether the judge or jury made the decision. The Court ruled that in investigation that could outcome in commitment to an organization, infantile have the right to observe and direction, to query witnesses, as well as to protection beside self-incrimination. And the Court did not law on an infantile right to appellate reconsider or transcripts, except expectant the States to give those rights. Yes, the judge or jury made the decision because the Court support its ruling on the detail that Gault was being disciplined rather than assist by the infantile court. The Court openly rejected the policy of parent's patriae as the beginning principle of infantile justice, defining the concept as gloomy and of dubious past significance. The Court finished that the behaviour of Gault's case dishonoured the due procedure clause of the 14th alteration: "infantile court narration has again established that unbridled carefulness, on the other hand benevolently encouraged, is frequently a deprived substitute for rule and procedure."[Ken99] Discuss whether or not you believe that the outcome of the case was justified. Provide a rationale for the response. We believe that the outcome of the case was justified because the actions of infantile Courts are occasionally defended by a declaration that it is the rule's policy "to hide young errors from the complete gaze of the civic as well as bury them in the cemetery of the forgotten THE COURT SYSTEM 8 precedent." This maintains of secrecy, on the other hand, is more oratory than realism. Expos of court records is flexible with the judge in mainly jurisdictions. Constitutional restrictions approximately invariably relate only to the court proceedings, as well as even as to those, the confirmation is that a lot of courts routinely provide information to the FBI law as well as the military, along with on request to administration agencies along with even to private manager of more significance are police proofs. In mainly States, the police force keeps a full file of infantile "police force contacts" as well as have whole discretion as to expos of juvenile records. Police force sections receive demands for details from the FBI as well as other rule enforcement organization, and communal service agencies, along with most of them usually observe. Private company word their request forms to construct information regarding juvenile arrests as well as court proceedings, along with in some authority, information concerning infantile police contacts is providing private manager as well as rule agencies. References: THE COURT SYSTEM Civil Cases vs. Criminal Cases. (2014). Retrieved from http://litigation.findlaw.com/: differences.html HARLAN. (2014). In re Gault. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/387/1 The Antitrust Laws. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov: http://www.ftc.gov/tipsadvice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws v., K. (1999, December ). U.S. Supreme Court cases. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov: https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html 9