The following is an examination which compares and contrasts the United States Supreme Court and the Russian Federation Supreme Court systems. First, this paper examines the legal system of Russia and describes the similarities and differences through comparing the European style legal system in Russia to the American style legal system in the United States. Secondly, it describes the structure of the respective judiciaries. Next, this analysis explains the selection process for each country’s high courts. Finally, this paper concludes by highlighting the controversial phenomena of the Russian Supreme Court overturning jury acquittals, potentially subverting the efficacy of jury trials in Russia, and comparing this practice to the legitimacy …show more content…
Conversely, Russia did not create its constitution until the end of the twentieth century, and has consistently met challenges establishing its legitimacy (Epstein, Knight, Shvetsova, 2001, p. 137). “The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches” (Curtis, 1996). Similarly, both countries have a hierarchical court system. By contrast, the Supreme Court in the United States is considered the country’s highest court, whereas Russia’s Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, and Special Arbitration Court are considered equal as the country’s highest courts. “The United States has a federal court system, and a separate court system for each state” (Baum, 2016, p. 5). Specifically, the United States has ninety-four district courts, and twelve appellate courts which hear appeals to the decisions made in the district courts. As the Supreme Court of the United States is the country’s highest court, it is not specialized, and largely resolves disputes which address a federal question between the district and appellate courts, and in rare cases, when a dispute between states arises (Baum, 2016, p. 9). Moreover, taking a case to the Supreme Court in the …show more content…
According to the United States Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook:
In February 2014, Russia’s Superior Court of Arbitration was abolished and its former authorities transferred to the Supreme Court, which in addition to being the country’s highest judicial authority for appeals, civil, criminal, administrative cases, and military cases, and the disciplinary judicial board, now has jurisdiction over economic disputes (2017).
Moreover, due to the European model of the Russian court system, litigants may take their cases directly to the appropriate court for consideration without following a hierarchy prior to having their case(s) heard in one of the higher courts (Epstein, Knight, Shvetsova, 2001, p. 121).
Justice Selection
In the case of Affleck and Damon v. Booth the primary nature of the case was in regards to their fourth amendment rights being broken; no probable cause for Booth and others to search and maintain their assets in the state of Georgia. In the District court, the ruling past onto both parties was that the case was dismissed due to Booth having no personal jurisdiction in the state of Nevada. This therefore was passed up to the Circuit court of Appeals whom overturned the lower courts decision based on the factors of the case encompassed more than the initial seizure. As both parties are not in agreement with where the trial shall be held the Supreme Court now will make a final decision based on issues to be ruled upon, material facts, and legal principles in practice.
...oved to be singularly influential and daunting. This is, perhaps, the greatest obstacles to achieving true democracy in Russia—the authoritarian and repressive traditions that refuse to die out with the passage of time.
United States Supreme Court cases are argued and decided on Constitutional grounds. All arguments and decisions are based on interpretations of the original Constitution and, more often, on Constitutional amendments.
The Supreme Court is allowed to decide the rulings for this country, but the thought is that they should only make decisions within the legal scope of the United States even if they happen to parallel foreign or international law. It is noted that those with this view tend to lean on the more conservative, Republican side. The Republican National Committee, in a piece titled “We the People: A Restoration of Constitutional Government”) states: “subjecting American citizens to foreign laws is inimical to the spirit of the Constitution. … There must be no use of foreign law by U.S. courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws. Nor should foreign sources of law be used in State courts’ adjudication of criminal or civil matters” Representative Tom Feeney, a Florida Republican, even brought up the idea of impeachment for Justice Members of the Court that didn’t act correctly in the ways of the Constitution (“We the People: A Restoration of Constitutional Government”).
among the nation's founders about the need for individual states to retain significant legislative authority and judicial autonomy separate from federal control. The reason why we have a dual-court system is, back then; new states joining the union were assured of limited federal intervention into local affairs. The state legislatures were free to create laws, and state court systems were needed to hear cases in which violations of those laws occurred. Today, however, state courts do not hear cases involving alleged violations of federal law, nor do federal courts involve themselves in deciding issues of state law unless there is a conflict between local or state statues and federal constitutional guarantees. When that happens, claimed violations of federal due process guarantees especially those found in the Bill of Rights.
Initially, the first human right that Stalin violated during his reign as dictator of the Soviet Union was everyone is entitled to fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal. Natasha Petrovskaya was tried three times and still convicted guilty. The judges were biased and were not at all interested. Mikhail Belov was tried by a court of three pro-Bolshevik judges, a troika, and it took 10 minutes to figure out his sentence. Olga Andreyeva was treated unfairly as she did not even get a trial she was simply given 10 years in the G...
THESIS: Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona are Supreme Court cases that prove to be essential in protecting and strengthening individual rights in the United States. To begin with, the United States’ Supreme Court is the utmost federal court in the government, established with precedence over the lower court system. It has appellate jurisdiction over all cases concerning the Constitution and/or federal law. For a case to reach the Supreme Court, the conflict is required to be between two or more states, concerning an ambassador, or a violation of the Constitution.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
The hierarchal structure of the federal court system consists of the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, Bankruptcy Appellate Panels, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, and Article I Courts (Hogan, 2010). The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Its primary role is to review decisions made by lower courts of appeals, where the case involves the federal law or Constitutional law. The Court of Appeals primary role is to hear cases involving challenges to the judgment made in District Courts, as well as appeals from federal administrative agencies decisions. Bankruptcy Appellate Panels primary role is to hear decisions made in bankruptcy court and determine if they follow the law. District Courts primary role is to determine all facts and evidence in a case while applying the law to decide who is right. Bankruptcy
How are federal courts of general jurisdiction different from state courts of general jurisdiction? State courts deal with every day cases dealing with state laws and regulations. They can vary from criminal procedures in civil or family cases, to lower offenses, such as parking tickets. They tend to be specific to the laws of each state, as the state is allowed to form their own set of laws to keep their residents “free and treat them equally”. Federal courts on the other hand, hear criminal that violate the US Constitution and/or cases that cross state lines , along with civil cases or bankruptcy cases. Both courts have appellate courts and interprets the laws (either state or federal laws). Federal court is more selective on the cases it
The Supreme Court, which sees almost 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases that they want to spend their time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn’t select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overrun, so they have put in place a program to weed through the court cases to pick out the small number they will discuss. There are a few criteria that are used to judge whether or not a case will be tried. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions for they will investigate these in order to withhold or draw back their conclusion that they made in their court case. Another is the case’s party alignment: sometimes the justices will pick cases that will align with their party beliefs, like trying to get a death row inmate off of his death sentence. They also make claims about the “life” of the case- the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases- they do not try to go back in time and re-mark a case that has long since been decided (Savage 981). Lastly, they like to take cases where the lower courts did not decide with one another -these cases can have t o do with interpretations of the law that have been left up to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982).
The US court system consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The trial court is the first to hear the facts of a case and has original jurisdiction. The appellate court hears cases whose resolution is disputed by the losing party in the trial court. The supreme or high court hears cases whose outcome is disputed by the losing party in the appellate court. The supreme or high court chooses which cases warrant a hearing. The federal and the state court system have the same basic structure. Each consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The Federal Court of Appeals has thirteen (13) circuits which cover most states except the District of Columbia. The federal system also has specialty courts such as the Court of Federal Claims and the United States Tax Court.
The jury system is essentially a descendant of Great Britain, the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. Colonialism played a significant role in the development of the jury system globally. However, despite colonial influence, judicial systems across the world have taken their own way. As a result, the jury system has developed and changed to suit the needs and social conscience of different countries. Across the world, juries examine and decide the facts in a jury trial, the accuracy of the testimony, the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants, and liabilities in a civil litigation. Today, many countries such as Britain, United States, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, German, India, and so on practice jury trials. These countries will be the issue of discussion in this paper.
The Russian Federation continues to pursue a program of dramatic economic, political and social transformation. Despite President Yeltsin's successful re-election campaign, continued economic reform remains subject to the influence of the communist controlled State Duma (the Russian parliament). Even the most optimistic scenarios envision a protracted process as Russia continues the task of fashioning a legal foundation for commerce, rationalizing the regulatory and taxation regimes with which businesses must comply, and completing the task of creating from scratch a highly effective and consistent customs administration. The duration and final outcome of this process are still uncertain. Consequently, Russia offers U.S. business both high risk, and potentially high rewards.
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.