Evolution and Structure of the U.S. Criminal Court System

Colonial Origins and Early Development

When the British first colonized the Americas, they adopted their centuries-old "Royal Privy Council" as a judicial system, functioning as a separate branch of government. Prior to the American Revolution, the individual American colonies each developed and maintained their own criminal and civil justice systems, with no uniformity among them — either procedurally or statutorily. More importantly, there was no official method for mediating disputes between citizens of different colonies.

Between 1660 and 1775, the British doctrine of "Disallowance" fulfilled the role of appellate review, as we know it within the context of our contemporary judicial system, hearing appeals of lower court decisions from individual colonies. The disallowance tribunal also decided issues of conflict between the individual colonies in the manner that modern American federal and appellate courts adjudicate disputes between individual American states (O'Connor, p. 206).

In 1787, the United States Constitution provided the necessary lawmaking authority to integrate all pre-revolutionary state courts, establish the Supreme Court, and determine its precise makeup. The actual composition of the Supreme Court varied from six to ten Justices between its inception and 1869, when Congress fixed the number at nine.

After the American Revolution, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established a federal court system for mediating disputes arising between individual states and for deciding issues of federal law. Similarly, the Judiciary Act outlined the relationship between state courts and the federal court system, specifically assigning their respective areas of jurisdiction (O'Connor, p. 208).

One of the most important elements of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was the distinction between judicial review of facts and judicial review of law. At the time of the First Congress, the Framers of the Constitution were chiefly concerned with the separation of powers between the three branches of government and the system of checks and balances in general. The need for state court appellate review at the federal level presented a potential problem if appellate judges reconsidered issues of fact, which would have undermined the entire system of state and lower federal courts of appeal. The solution was to preclude all issues of fact decided by lower courts from appellate consideration and allow review only of substantive issues of law and judicial procedure.

There are two major components of the United States criminal justice system: the federal criminal courts and the state criminal courts. Both state and federal district trial courts are courts of original jurisdiction in that they function as fact-finders. State appellate courts do not entertain factual evidence; they consider only reversible issues of judicial error or misconduct at the lower court level.

Modern Structure of the Criminal Justice System

Federal courts enjoy concurrent original jurisdiction over issues that are also subject to state regulation, such as some disputes between citizens of different states. In that capacity, federal courts function as both a fact-finding forum and an arbiter of all matters of law appealed from lower court decisions.

Thirteen federal district courts, comprising 94 district courts and 179 federal judges, maintain exclusive original jurisdiction over matters of extreme national importance requiring uniformity of administration. In accordance with this exclusive original jurisdiction, federal district courts are said to preempt state authority on matters such as intellectual property, patent law, and trademark law.

Appellate district courts usually consist of a panel of three judges hearing approximately 50,000 criminal cases annually, without a jury. At the conclusion of testimony, the court issues a ruling whereby the original decision is either affirmed and upheld, or reversed entirely. Appellate courts also retain the option of remanding a case back for re-trial after settling the specific, narrow issue or issues of law or procedure that provided the basis for the initial appeal.

The Constitution authorizes the appointment of federal judges for life, and their removal only through impeachment for conviction of treason, bribery, or "other high crimes and misdemeanors." This provision helps insulate federal judges from undue influence or corruptibility from parties or entities hoping to benefit from judges beholden to them for re-election.

In addition to the federal district courts, administrative agencies of the United States government maintain adjudicative bodies analogous in function to federal courts. Distinct, independent administrative courts entertain cases arising within legal matters of tax, labor law, securities regulation, and international trade.

Appeals from any of the twelve federal district courts are heard in the U.S. Courts of Appeal, usually referred to as circuit courts, and organized by regions comprising several contiguous states. Federal judges appointed for life sit on twelve federal circuit courts, hearing cases in panels of six judges. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Claims and the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals were merged to form the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, creating the thirteenth federal circuit.

The individual fifty states all maintain their own trial courts of original jurisdiction that operate as finders of both fact and law. Most state courts are designated as superior courts that hear either criminal or civil matters. Just as the federal judicial system maintains separate administrative agency courts, many state court systems also incorporate trial-level courts of original limited jurisdiction over specific areas of law, such as domestic relations, juvenile matters, and probate (O'Connor, p. 211).

Finally, many states allocate specific jurisdiction to minor criminal matters, such as motor vehicle code violations in jurisdictions where vehicular laws are addressed under criminal codes. In states where vehicular law falls outside the scope of the criminal code, cases are typically decided by administrative law judges. There are also usually small claims courts of original concurrent jurisdiction for legal matters of limited monetary value, as specifically defined by statute.