State & Local Government Judicial Politics in the States.

State & Local GovernmentState & Local Government

Judicial Politics in the StatesJudicial Politics in the States

The Judicial BranchThe Judicial Branch

Courts are important in U.S. due to two factors:Courts are important in U.S. due to two factors:

A. higher law notion of constitutionalityA. higher law notion of constitutionality Constitution = societal contractConstitution = societal contract some institution must interpret that contractsome institution must interpret that contract courts have assumed that role, because they are seen courts have assumed that role, because they are seen

as less politicalas less political

B. separation of powersB. separation of powers courts are largely independent of the other branches courts are largely independent of the other branches because, they are capable of protecting themselves because, they are capable of protecting themselves in short, courts are political actorsin short, courts are political actors

The Creation and Organization The Creation and Organization of the Federal Judiciaryof the Federal Judiciary

Article III – The United States Article III – The United States Supreme CourtSupreme Court

Article I – Congress has the Power to Article I – Congress has the Power to Establish Lower Federal CourtsEstablish Lower Federal Courts Federal District Court (94)Federal District Court (94) The Federal Courts of Appeals (12+1)The Federal Courts of Appeals (12+1)

Federal Court Organization (simplified)Federal Court Organization (simplified)

The federal courts are organized in to The federal courts are organized in to three tiers - like a pyramid. three tiers - like a pyramid.

Base: Base: Federal District CourtsFederal District Courts Each state has at least one district court and Each state has at least one district court and

no district encompass more than one state.no district encompass more than one state. There are 94 total district courts and about 665 There are 94 total district courts and about 665

judges.judges. These courts are presided over by federal These courts are presided over by federal

judges who are appointed by the president, judges who are appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate and hold office for life. confirmed by the senate and hold office for life.

Each court has a minimum of two judges and a Each court has a minimum of two judges and a maximum of about 27. maximum of about 27.

These courts hear about 280,000 criminal and These courts hear about 280,000 criminal and civil cases per year.civil cases per year.

Federal District CourtFederal District Court

Federal district courts have original Federal district courts have original jurisdiction in most, but not all, federal jurisdiction in most, but not all, federal cases. Some of these are criminal, but cases. Some of these are criminal, but many if not most cases are civil.many if not most cases are civil.

Federal district courts use both grand and Federal district courts use both grand and petite juries and cases are argued by petite juries and cases are argued by United States Attorneys, who are United States Attorneys, who are appointed by the president via senatorial appointed by the president via senatorial courtesy.courtesy.

Arkansas has two federal districts: Arkansas has two federal districts: Western & Eastern.Western & Eastern.

Arkansas Federal DistrictsArkansas Federal Districts

Eastern DistrictEastern District

Federal Courts of AppealsFederal Courts of Appeals

11 geographic circuits, DC 1211 geographic circuits, DC 12thth, 13, 13thth Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit.Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit. Court of Appellate JurisdictionCourt of Appellate Jurisdiction Hear about 40K per yearHear about 40K per year No Juries / Three Judge PanelsNo Juries / Three Judge Panels Written Briefs Written Briefs

Middle Tier: The US Court of AppealsMiddle Tier: The US Court of Appeals

Cases that are adjudicated by the federal district Cases that are adjudicated by the federal district courts may be appealed to one of 13 U.S. Courts of courts may be appealed to one of 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals. Appeals.

Twelve of these courts are regional circuit courts - that Twelve of these courts are regional circuit courts - that is, they hear cases from larger geographic areas is, they hear cases from larger geographic areas known as circuits. known as circuits.

The Thirteenth court is in Washington D.C. and The Thirteenth court is in Washington D.C. and concentrates on appeals related to civil suits against concentrates on appeals related to civil suits against the US government. These courts hear about 36,000 the US government. These courts hear about 36,000 cases per year.cases per year.

Cases are heard by three judges who largely work off Cases are heard by three judges who largely work off of written arguments known as briefs with limited oral of written arguments known as briefs with limited oral arguments on the part of attorneys. There are no arguments on the part of attorneys. There are no juries, witnesses or cross examinations. juries, witnesses or cross examinations.

Arkansas is located in the 8Arkansas is located in the 8thth Circuit which sits in St. Circuit which sits in St. Louis, MO. The 8Louis, MO. The 8thth Circuit hears cases for the following Circuit hears cases for the following states: Arkansas; Iowa; Minnesota; Missouri; states: Arkansas; Iowa; Minnesota; Missouri; Nebraska; North Dakota; South Dakota.Nebraska; North Dakota; South Dakota.

Top Tier: The United States Supreme CourtTop Tier: The United States Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is both a court of original and The Supreme Court is both a court of original and appellate jurisdiction.appellate jurisdiction.

Article III (section 2) outlines the original jurisdiction of Article III (section 2) outlines the original jurisdiction of the court. Most important is the supreme court's role as the court. Most important is the supreme court's role as the first and only arbitrator of legal disputes between the first and only arbitrator of legal disputes between the states. the states.

Article I grants Congress the power to establish Article I grants Congress the power to establish appellate jurisdiction for federal courts.appellate jurisdiction for federal courts.

Most cases heard by the court are on appeal from the Most cases heard by the court are on appeal from the US courts of appeals and state courts of last resort (the US courts of appeals and state courts of last resort (the highest of the state courts)- although in extraordinary highest of the state courts)- although in extraordinary circumstances the court will hear a case directly after circumstances the court will hear a case directly after resolution in district courtresolution in district court E.g. United States vs. Nixon (1974) E.g. United States vs. Nixon (1974)

The Supreme Court hears relatively few cases - The Supreme Court hears relatively few cases - approximately 150 – 200 per year out of 5000 - 7000 approximately 150 – 200 per year out of 5000 - 7000 requests for review. 97% of requests for review are requests for review. 97% of requests for review are rejected on average.rejected on average.

Article III, Section II: Article III, Section II: Supreme Court JurisdictionSupreme Court Jurisdiction

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Federal Court JurisdictionFederal Court Jurisdiction

Federal Question jurisdictionFederal Question jurisdiction A case must present a question arising under A case must present a question arising under

the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, regulation, executive order, or treaty.regulation, executive order, or treaty.

Diversity of Citizenship jurisdictionDiversity of Citizenship jurisdiction Applies only to civil suitsApplies only to civil suits Case must involve parties from different Case must involve parties from different

states and an amount in controversy states and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000that exceeds $75,000

The United States Supreme The United States Supreme CourtCourt

How the US SC Hears CasesHow the US SC Hears Cases Writ of CertiorariWrit of Certiorari

Petition for Court to Hear the CasePetition for Court to Hear the Case Literal meaning (request for lower court Literal meaning (request for lower court

records)records) Rule of FourRule of Four Exhaust the State JudiciaryExhaust the State Judiciary Exhaust (almost always) the federal Exhaust (almost always) the federal

judiciaryjudiciary

Supreme Court: Supreme Court: Basic ProceduresBasic Procedures

Cases appealed from the states must meet two Cases appealed from the states must meet two conditions. First, they must have exhausted the state conditions. First, they must have exhausted the state system. Second, they must raise federal questions - system. Second, they must raise federal questions - issues of constitutional principles, federal law, etc. issues of constitutional principles, federal law, etc.

The court exercises total control over its docket and The court exercises total control over its docket and decides what cases to hear by the decides what cases to hear by the rule of fourrule of four

The procedures of the supreme court look much like The procedures of the supreme court look much like those in appellate courts. The nine justices hear oral those in appellate courts. The nine justices hear oral arguments and read briefs including arguments and read briefs including amicus curiaeamicus curiae briefs. briefs.

The federal government, a usual litigant in before the The federal government, a usual litigant in before the court, is represented by the United States Solicitor court, is represented by the United States Solicitor General (Paul D. Clement)General (Paul D. Clement)

Basic Procedures (con’t)Basic Procedures (con’t) Court hears oral arguments and then meets Court hears oral arguments and then meets

in private meeting to vote on case. in private meeting to vote on case. SenoritySenority Agenda settingAgenda setting

After the court decides a case by majority After the court decides a case by majority vote, a majority (typically the chief justice if vote, a majority (typically the chief justice if in the majority or the most senior justice in in the majority or the most senior justice in the majority) and minority opinion is written. the majority) and minority opinion is written.

These serve as the guide for lower courts to These serve as the guide for lower courts to handle similar cases. Because of the handle similar cases. Because of the principle of principle of Stare DecisisStare Decisis the majority the majority opinion explains the basis for subsequent opinion explains the basis for subsequent rulings. rulings.

The United States Supreme The United States Supreme CourtCourt

How the US SC Hears Cases ContinuedHow the US SC Hears Cases Continued There are several types of opinions issued by the There are several types of opinions issued by the

Courts:Courts: per curiam - decision delivered via an opinion issued in per curiam - decision delivered via an opinion issued in

the name of the Court rather than specific justices. Tend the name of the Court rather than specific justices. Tend to be short and on non-controversial issues.to be short and on non-controversial issues.

Majority opinion - opinion of the courtMajority opinion - opinion of the court Concurring opinion - written by justice who agrees with Concurring opinion - written by justice who agrees with

the majority's conclusion, but not its reasoningthe majority's conclusion, but not its reasoning Dissenting opinion - written by justice who disagrees with Dissenting opinion - written by justice who disagrees with

the majority's conclusionthe majority's conclusion The Court generally decides cases from the The Court generally decides cases from the

bottom-up.bottom-up. Amicus Curiae & likelihood of reviewAmicus Curiae & likelihood of review

Courts in PerspectiveCourts in Perspective

How Powerful are the US Federal How Powerful are the US Federal Courts?Courts? The strongest courts in the worldThe strongest courts in the world The weakest branch of government The weakest branch of government

Tools of the CourtTools of the Court

Judicial ReviewJudicial Review Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison (1803) (1803)

Exercise of JRExercise of JR Approximately 160 Federal StatutesApproximately 160 Federal Statutes Approximately 1400 State/Local Approximately 1400 State/Local

Statutes (2/3 of which date to the Statutes (2/3 of which date to the incorporation era)incorporation era)

The Federal CourtsThe Federal Courts

Article III establishes the Supreme Court. One of the major Article III establishes the Supreme Court. One of the major justifications for the court is the justifications for the court is the Supremacy ClauseSupremacy Clause which which establishes the preeminence of national over state law.establishes the preeminence of national over state law.

Congress also has the power to establish lower federal Congress also has the power to establish lower federal courts, and during the first congress the United States was courts, and during the first congress the United States was divided in to judicial districts for the establishment of divided in to judicial districts for the establishment of federal district court (there are 94 district courts in the federal district court (there are 94 district courts in the United States).United States).

Basic point: the United States has the strongest court in the Basic point: the United States has the strongest court in the world.world.

Strongest Courts Strongest Courts

Courts are powerful for several reasonsCourts are powerful for several reasons A. Ability to act as a regulatorA. Ability to act as a regulator

regularly rule on the validity of federal regulationsregularly rule on the validity of federal regulations many regulations currently not seen as valid until upheld by many regulations currently not seen as valid until upheld by

the courtsthe courts

B. Ability to invoke judicial reviewB. Ability to invoke judicial review declare acts of Congress or the president to be impermissible declare acts of Congress or the president to be impermissible

under the Constitutionunder the Constitution have done so about 160 times since 1803have done so about 160 times since 1803 have ruled state laws unconstitutional about 1,000 timeshave ruled state laws unconstitutional about 1,000 times

C. One of the most trusted institutions in governmentC. One of the most trusted institutions in government public trust is highpublic trust is high even given intrepretivist vs. activist debateeven given intrepretivist vs. activist debate

Courts are LimitedCourts are Limited stare decisisstare decisis

lawyers love precedentlawyers love precedent prefer stability offered by prior cases -- less disruption to society prefer stability offered by prior cases -- less disruption to society

and to reputation of the Courtand to reputation of the Court writing in 1992 case of writing in 1992 case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Planned Parenthood of Southeastern

Pennsylvania vs. CaseyPennsylvania vs. Casey, Justice David Souter noted, in upholding , Justice David Souter noted, in upholding Roe:Roe:

"For two decades of economic and social development, people "For two decades of economic and social development, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.... [Whatever the premises of contraception should fail.... [Whatever the premises of opposition may be, only the most convincing justification under opposition may be, only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure, and an unjustified repudiation of surrender to political pressure, and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most instance. So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."

Limits: JusticiabilityLimits: Justiciability must wait for cases to come to them - reactive, must wait for cases to come to them - reactive,

not proactivenot proactive The case must be justiciable:The case must be justiciable:

1.1. there must be a real controversy - no friendly suits, no there must be a real controversy - no friendly suits, no advisory opinions (unlike many state supreme courts)advisory opinions (unlike many state supreme courts)

2.2. case must be ripe and not moot - other avenues (state case must be ripe and not moot - other avenues (state courts, etc.) must be exhausted, injuries real – not courts, etc.) must be exhausted, injuries real – not hypothetical, etc.hypothetical, etc.

3.3. parties must have standing - they must be the ones at parties must have standing - they must be the ones at risk, government must waive sovereign immunity, etc.risk, government must waive sovereign immunity, etc.

4.4. Case must not present a political question - court must Case must not present a political question - court must see the matter as one that can be solved by judges; see the matter as one that can be solved by judges; often eliminates political matters on which the Court often eliminates political matters on which the Court has no special expertise (e.g. conundrum of War Powers has no special expertise (e.g. conundrum of War Powers Act; Bush v. Gore)Act; Bush v. Gore)

Powers of the CourtPowers of the Court

The supreme court has the power of The supreme court has the power of Judicial ReviewJudicial Review. That . That is, to declare laws passed by congress an the states is, to declare laws passed by congress an the states unconstitutional and therefore null and void. This is what unconstitutional and therefore null and void. This is what makes the courts so powerful.makes the courts so powerful.

Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison - 1803. - 1803.

The election of 1800 witnessed the defeat of the federalists The election of 1800 witnessed the defeat of the federalists and the election of democratic president Thomas Jefferson. and the election of democratic president Thomas Jefferson. Before leaving office Federalist president John Adams, w/ the Before leaving office Federalist president John Adams, w/ the help of the federalist dominated legislature, packed the help of the federalist dominated legislature, packed the judiciary with loads of federalist judges. Jefferson was furious, judiciary with loads of federalist judges. Jefferson was furious, and when he realized that several of the appointments had not and when he realized that several of the appointments had not been delivered he order they be cancelled. One of the been delivered he order they be cancelled. One of the appointees, Wm. Marbury, asked the court to order that the appointees, Wm. Marbury, asked the court to order that the appointments be made.appointments be made.

Interpreting the ConstitutionInterpreting the Constitution Built-in Flexibility?Built-in Flexibility?

Elastic clauseElastic clause Reserve clauseReserve clause

Judicial Interpretation of the ConstitutionJudicial Interpretation of the Constitution ““It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the

judicial department to say what the law is.” – judicial department to say what the law is.” – MarhsallMarhsall

Doctrine of Original Intent (Meaning): judges Doctrine of Original Intent (Meaning): judges should attempt to determine what the Framers should attempt to determine what the Framers intended the provision to mean.intended the provision to mean.

Living Constitution: Meaning of constitution must Living Constitution: Meaning of constitution must evolve to fit the spirit of the age evolve to fit the spirit of the age

TextualismTextualism Interpretivism (textualism): the proper judicial Interpretivism (textualism): the proper judicial

function ins interpretation as opposed to law-function ins interpretation as opposed to law-making.making. Judges are guided by the “plain meaning” of the Judges are guided by the “plain meaning” of the

constitutional text when it is clear.constitutional text when it is clear. ““"[W]hen judges test their individual notions of "[W]hen judges test their individual notions of

'fairness' against an American tradition that is 'fairness' against an American tradition that is deep and broad and continuing, it is not the deep and broad and continuing, it is not the tradition that is on trial, but the judges.“ – Justice tradition that is on trial, but the judges.“ – Justice Antonin ScaliaAntonin Scalia

See “A Matter of Interpretation” for an essay on See “A Matter of Interpretation” for an essay on textualism by Scalia.textualism by Scalia.

OriginalismOriginalism Originalism: Judges should attempt to determine the Originalism: Judges should attempt to determine the

original “meaning” or “intent” of the Founders (or original “meaning” or “intent” of the Founders (or Framers).Framers).

Important distinctionImportant distinction One theory, original intent, is the view that interpretation of a One theory, original intent, is the view that interpretation of a

written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be.the ordinary meaning of the text to be.

Strict Constructionism: strict construction requires a judge to Strict Constructionism: strict construction requires a judge to apply the text as it is written and no further, once the apply the text as it is written and no further, once the meaning of the text has been ascertained meaning of the text has been ascertained

As Scalia has said, "As Scalia has said, "the Constitution, or any text, should be the Constitution, or any text, should be interpreted [n]either strictly [n]or sloppily; it should be interpreted [n]either strictly [n]or sloppily; it should be interpreted interpreted reasonablyreasonably"; ";

The Living ConstitutionThe Living Constitution LC: a theory of constitutional interpretation which premises that the LC: a theory of constitutional interpretation which premises that the

Constitution is, to some degree, dynamic. Constitution is, to some degree, dynamic.

As the direct counter to originalism, which centers on meaning at the As the direct counter to originalism, which centers on meaning at the time of ratification, the theory of a "living" Constitution suggests a time of ratification, the theory of a "living" Constitution suggests a founding document that remains interdependent with an evolving founding document that remains interdependent with an evolving society. society.

Its proponents thus argue that societal progress must be taken into Its proponents thus argue that societal progress must be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. PragmatismPragmatism: the belief that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with : the belief that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with

long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter. long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter. IntentIntent: the argument that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the : the argument that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the

Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. document.

Al Gore: “Al Gore: “I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

Activism vs. RestraintActivism vs. Restraint Activism v. Restraint: opposing philosophies of judicial Activism v. Restraint: opposing philosophies of judicial

powerpower Judicial Restraint: theory of judicial interpretation that Judicial Restraint: theory of judicial interpretation that

encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional.down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional. Issues of standing, mootness, ripeness, political Issues of standing, mootness, ripeness, political

questions, etc. have to do with judicial restraint.questions, etc. have to do with judicial restraint. Judicial Activism: Courts are coequal participants in the Judicial Activism: Courts are coequal participants in the

policy-making process.policy-making process. ““it is far more important to be respectful to the it is far more important to be respectful to the

Constitution than to a coordinate branch of Constitution than to a coordinate branch of government” William O. Douglasgovernment” William O. Douglas

The Ashwander RulesThe Ashwander Rules Judicial Restraint counsels judges to avoid broad or Judicial Restraint counsels judges to avoid broad or

dramatic constitutional pronouncements.dramatic constitutional pronouncements. Some of these rules can be found in Brandeis’s concurring Some of these rules can be found in Brandeis’s concurring

opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936).opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936).

1. The Court will not anticipate the constitutionality in a 1. The Court will not anticipate the constitutionality in a friendly, non-adversarial proceeding. (Cases and friendly, non-adversarial proceeding. (Cases and Controversies)Controversies)

2.      The Court does not anticipate in advance (i.e. without 2.      The Court does not anticipate in advance (i.e. without the necessity for hearing) the constitutionality of a the necessity for hearing) the constitutionality of a question of Constitutional Law/interpretation. (Cases and question of Constitutional Law/interpretation. (Cases and Controversies, no advisory opinions)Controversies, no advisory opinions)

3.      The court will not formulate a rule of law broader 3.      The court will not formulate a rule of law broader than the case which is before it. (than the case which is before it. (Obiter DictaObiter Dicta going beyond going beyond the case issues is generally frowned upon but “done” all of the case issues is generally frowned upon but “done” all of the time)the time)

The Ashwander RulesThe Ashwander Rules 4.      If possible the Court will dispose of a case on non-4.      If possible the Court will dispose of a case on non-

constitutional grounds (statutory interpretation is constitutional grounds (statutory interpretation is preferred over Constitutional interpretation)preferred over Constitutional interpretation)

5.      The Court will not pass on the validity of a statute 5.      The Court will not pass on the validity of a statute on complaint of one who fails to show injury to person on complaint of one who fails to show injury to person or property. (This is an issue of Standing)or property. (This is an issue of Standing)

6.      The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality 6.      The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has accepted its of a statute at the instance of one who has accepted its benefits. There is little need after all, for the ‘winner’ to benefits. There is little need after all, for the ‘winner’ to challenge the Constitutionality of the law which aids challenge the Constitutionality of the law which aids them. (Cases and Controversies)them. (Cases and Controversies)

Whenever possible, statutes will be construed so as to Whenever possible, statutes will be construed so as to avoid a constitutional issue (Statutory interpretation) avoid a constitutional issue (Statutory interpretation)

State CourtsState Courts

The vast majority of non-criminal cases in The vast majority of non-criminal cases in the United States are handled in state the United States are handled in state courts, rather than federal courts. courts, rather than federal courts.

For example, in Colorado, in 2002, which is For example, in Colorado, in 2002, which is typical, roughly 97% of all civil cases were typical, roughly 97% of all civil cases were filed in state courts and 89% of the cases filed in state courts and 89% of the cases filed in federal court were bankruptcies. filed in federal court were bankruptcies.

Essentially all probate and divorce cases Essentially all probate and divorce cases are also brought in state court, even if the are also brought in state court, even if the parties involved live in different states.parties involved live in different states.

Forum ShoppingForum Shopping Often, a plaintiff can bring a matter either to state court or federal Often, a plaintiff can bring a matter either to state court or federal

court, because it arises under federal law, or involves a substantial court, because it arises under federal law, or involves a substantial monetary dispute (in excess of $75,000 as of October 26, 2007) monetary dispute (in excess of $75,000 as of October 26, 2007) arising under state law between parties that do not reside in the arising under state law between parties that do not reside in the same state. same state.

If a plaintiff files suit in state court in such a case, the defendant If a plaintiff files suit in state court in such a case, the defendant can "remove" the case to federal court if a timely request is made can "remove" the case to federal court if a timely request is made to do so. to do so.

Deciding on the jurisdiction is part of litigation strategy for both Deciding on the jurisdiction is part of litigation strategy for both plaintiff and defendant, in which the make up of the likely juries in plaintiff and defendant, in which the make up of the likely juries in each court, and the differences between federal and state court each court, and the differences between federal and state court procedures figure highly. A mere federal law defense to a claim procedures figure highly. A mere federal law defense to a claim arising under state law, however, is generally not a basis for arising under state law, however, is generally not a basis for removing a case to federal court from state court.removing a case to federal court from state court.

Selective IncorporationSelective Incorporation

as originally written, Bill of Rights applied as originally written, Bill of Rights applied only to the national governmentonly to the national government

1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law….”law….”

Madison proposed language to include statesMadison proposed language to include states ““no State shall violate the equal rights of no State shall violate the equal rights of

conscience, or the freedom of the press, or conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases”the trial by jury in criminal cases”

but never adoptedbut never adopted Barron v Baltimore (1833) – Court is explicitBarron v Baltimore (1833) – Court is explicit

Selective Incorporation CasesSelective Incorporation Cases

cruel/unusual punishment (Robinson v CA, cruel/unusual punishment (Robinson v CA, 1962)1962)

right to counsel (Gideon v Wainwright, 1963)right to counsel (Gideon v Wainwright, 1963) self-incrimination (Malloy v Hogan, 1964)self-incrimination (Malloy v Hogan, 1964) confront witnesses (Pointer v TX, 1965)confront witnesses (Pointer v TX, 1965) impartial trial (Parker v Gladden, 1966)impartial trial (Parker v Gladden, 1966) speedy trial (Klopfer v NC, 1967)speedy trial (Klopfer v NC, 1967) compel witnesses (Washington v TX, 1967)compel witnesses (Washington v TX, 1967) jury trial (Duncan v LA, 1968)jury trial (Duncan v LA, 1968) double jeopardy (Benton v MD, 1969)double jeopardy (Benton v MD, 1969)

More on Selective IncorporationMore on Selective Incorporation

1414thth Amendment (1868) Amendment (1868) ““no state shall make or enforce any law no state shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”without due process of law”

did this mean Bill of Rights applies to did this mean Bill of Rights applies to states?states?

Supreme Court originally said it did notSupreme Court originally said it did not e.g., Twining v New Jersey e.g., Twining v New Jersey (1908)(1908)

Selective Incorporation (con’t)Selective Incorporation (con’t)

Supreme Court begins to change in Supreme Court begins to change in 1920s1920s Gitlow v NYGitlow v NY (1925) … socialist manifesto (1925) … socialist manifesto Supreme Court upholds conviction Supreme Court upholds conviction

(“dangerous tendency” test) … but (“dangerous tendency” test) … but holds that 14holds that 14thth amendment extends 1 amendment extends 1stst amendment to statesamendment to states

Near v MNNear v MN (1931) … overturns prior (1931) … overturns prior restraint of restraint of Saturday Press Saturday Press to publish to publish “malicious, scandalous, and “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory” statementsdefamatory” statements

Selective Incorporation CasesSelective Incorporation Cases

since since Gitlow Gitlow and and NearNear, Supreme , Supreme Court has selectively incorporated Court has selectively incorporated most elements of Bill of Rightsmost elements of Bill of Rights assembly (assembly (DeJonge v ORDeJonge v OR, 1937), 1937) religion (religion (Cantwell v CTCantwell v CT, 1940), 1940) public trial (public trial (In re OliverIn re Oliver, 1948), 1948) search and seizure (search and seizure (Wolf v COWolf v CO, 1949), 1949) exclusionary rule (exclusionary rule (Mapp v OHMapp v OH, 1961), 1961)

involved girlfriend of Don Kinginvolved girlfriend of Don King

Highlight: 4Highlight: 4thth Amendment Amendment ““The right of the people to be secure in their The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizuresunreasonable searches and seizures, shall , shall not be violated, and no not be violated, and no WarrantsWarrants shall issue, but shall issue, but upon upon probable causeprobable cause, supported by Oath or , supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”seized.”

Fourth AmendmentFourth Amendment

PrivacyPrivacy – protection against unreasonable – protection against unreasonable searches & seizures through warrant searches & seizures through warrant requirementrequirement

PunishmentPunishment – Exclusionary Rule: evidence – Exclusionary Rule: evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution gathered in violation of the Constitution cannot be used in a trial.cannot be used in a trial.

CaveatCaveat – applies only to government; it does – applies only to government; it does not guarantee the right to be free from not guarantee the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations conducted by private citizens or organizations (i.e. “Cheaters”).(i.e. “Cheaters”).

Fourth Amendment & PrivacyFourth Amendment & Privacy

The 4The 4thth Amendment requires the Amendment requires the government to obtain a valid warrant in government to obtain a valid warrant in order to conduct a search or a seizure.order to conduct a search or a seizure.

Valid warrants must establish “probable Valid warrants must establish “probable cause” – reasonable belief that a search or cause” – reasonable belief that a search or seizure would produce contraband or seizure would produce contraband or reveal a criminal activityreveal a criminal activity

ExceptionsExceptions Plain ViewPlain View Search incident to arrestSearch incident to arrest

Fourth Amendment & Fourth Amendment & PunishmentPunishment

Exclusionary RuleExclusionary Rule ( (Weeks v. United Weeks v. United StatesStates) – evidence obtained through an ) – evidence obtained through an illegal search is “fruit of the poisoned tree” illegal search is “fruit of the poisoned tree” and thus cannot be used at trial.and thus cannot be used at trial.

Exceptions:Exceptions: ““Good FaithGood Faith” – evidence collected through a ” – evidence collected through a

defective warrants could be used where police defective warrants could be used where police reasonably believed it to be a good warrant reasonably believed it to be a good warrant ((United States v. LeonUnited States v. Leon))

“ “Inevitable DiscoveryInevitable Discovery” – evidence collected ” – evidence collected illegally may be admitted at court if it can be illegally may be admitted at court if it can be reasonably argued the evidence would have reasonably argued the evidence would have been obtained legallybeen obtained legally

Highlight: Fifth AmendmentHighlight: Fifth Amendment

““No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of twice put in jeopardy of life or limblife or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a case to be a witness against himselfwitness against himself, nor be , nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due due process of lawprocess of law; nor shall private property be ; nor shall private property be

taken for public use, without taken for public use, without just compensationjust compensation.”.”

Fifth Amendment JurisprudenceFifth Amendment Jurisprudence Double JeopardyDouble Jeopardy – individuals may be tried only – individuals may be tried only

once for a particular offense once for a particular offense Self-IncriminationSelf-Incrimination – protects witnesses from – protects witnesses from

being forced to incriminate themselves. being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" or to "take the Fifth" is to refuse to To "plead the Fifth" or to "take the Fifth" is to refuse to

answer a question because the response could form answer a question because the response could form incriminating evidenceincriminating evidence

Due ProcessDue Process – the principle that the government – the principle that the government must normally respect all of a person's legal rights must normally respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or propertyliberty, or property Due process embraces “fundamental fairness” & those Due process embraces “fundamental fairness” & those

fundamental rights that are "implicit in ordered liberty.“fundamental rights that are "implicit in ordered liberty.“ Notification of charges against you, right to be heard, Notification of charges against you, right to be heard,

etc. etc.

Fifth Amendment & PunishmentFifth Amendment & Punishment Fifth AmendmentFifth Amendment No self-incriminationNo self-incrimination Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona (1966) (1966)

‘‘Voluntary Confessions’: The Court was called upon to Voluntary Confessions’: The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." significant way."

Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."

Miranda RightsMiranda Rights

Fifth Amendment & PrivacyFifth Amendment & Privacy

The Fifth Amendment limits the power The Fifth Amendment limits the power of of eminent domaineminent domain (the power of the (the power of the government to take private property government to take private property for public use) by requiring that "just for public use) by requiring that "just compensation" be paid if private compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use.property is taken for public use.

What is “public use”?What is “public use”? Kelo v. City of New LondonKelo v. City of New London – private – private

property seized for commercial use did property seized for commercial use did not violate the Fifth Amendment.not violate the Fifth Amendment.

Eigth Amendment: PunishmentEigth Amendment: Punishment Eighth amendment: “Cruel & Unusual Punishment”Eighth amendment: “Cruel & Unusual Punishment” Furman v. GeorgiaFurman v. Georgia

The Court's one-page The Court's one-page per curiamper curiam opinion held that the opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. Constitution.

However, it left the door open for states to put in place However, it left the door open for states to put in place procedural safeguards that could permit the death penalty procedural safeguards that could permit the death penalty to pass constitutional muster.to pass constitutional muster.

Gregg v. GeorgiaGregg v. Georgia In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of

death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed.employed.

Emanating Penumbras & Emanating Penumbras & PrivacyPrivacy

Is there a right to Privacy?Is there a right to Privacy? Griswold v. ConnecticutGriswold v. Connecticut (1965) (1965)

““a right to privacy older then the Bill of a right to privacy older then the Bill of Rights”Rights” Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to

privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy.

Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations.constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations.

Roe v. WadeRoe v. Wade (1973) (1973) a “woman’s right to privacy was so fundamental it could be infringed a “woman’s right to privacy was so fundamental it could be infringed

only when the state interest in doing so was compelling”only when the state interest in doing so was compelling” The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right

to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Fourteenth Amendment.

The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. second and third trimesters.

As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

State Courts & Criminal CasesState Courts & Criminal Cases About 91% of people in prison at any given time in the About 91% of people in prison at any given time in the

United States were convicted in state court, rather than United States were convicted in state court, rather than federal court, including 99% of defendants sentenced to federal court, including 99% of defendants sentenced to death. death.

Federal courts disproportionately handle white collar Federal courts disproportionately handle white collar crimes, immigration related crimes and drug offenses crimes, immigration related crimes and drug offenses (these crimes make up about 70% of the federal docket, (these crimes make up about 70% of the federal docket, but just 19% of the state court criminal docket). but just 19% of the state court criminal docket).

A large share of the violent crimes that are prosecuted in A large share of the violent crimes that are prosecuted in federal court arise on Indian Reservations or federal federal court arise on Indian Reservations or federal property, where state courts lack jurisdiction and tribal property, where state courts lack jurisdiction and tribal court jurisdiction is usually limited to less serious offenses.court jurisdiction is usually limited to less serious offenses.

Cases in the StatesCases in the States

Expanded LiabilityExpanded Liability Contingency FeesContingency Fees Third-Party SuitsThird-Party Suits ““Pain and Suffering” & “Punitive” AwardsPain and Suffering” & “Punitive” Awards ““Joint and Several” LiabilityJoint and Several” Liability Tort ReformTort Reform Alternative Dispute Resolution Alternative Dispute Resolution

(mediation)(mediation)

Arkansas CourtsArkansas Courts

Arkansas Courts & the ConstitutionArkansas Courts & the ConstitutionThe Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court

Arkansas became the 25th state of the United States in 1836. Arkansas became the 25th state of the United States in 1836. Under the state's first constitution, the Arkansas Supreme Court Under the state's first constitution, the Arkansas Supreme Court was composed of three judges including one Chief Justice. was composed of three judges including one Chief Justice.

The Arkansas General Assembly elected the judges. Daniel Ringo, The Arkansas General Assembly elected the judges. Daniel Ringo, Townsend Dickinson, and Thomas J. Lacy were selected to serve Townsend Dickinson, and Thomas J. Lacy were selected to serve as the first Arkansas Supreme Court judges. Mr. Ringo became the as the first Arkansas Supreme Court judges. Mr. Ringo became the first Chief Justice.first Chief Justice.

The state's current constitution, ratified in 1874, provided for The state's current constitution, ratified in 1874, provided for three Arkansas Supreme Court judges. The Arkansas Constitution three Arkansas Supreme Court judges. The Arkansas Constitution of 1874 was amended in 1924 to provide for five Arkansas of 1874 was amended in 1924 to provide for five Arkansas Supreme Court judges. Amendment 9 also allowed the Arkansas Supreme Court judges. Amendment 9 also allowed the Arkansas General Assembly to increase the number to seven judges, which General Assembly to increase the number to seven judges, which it did by Act 205 of 1925.it did by Act 205 of 1925.

Arkansas S.C. JurisdictionArkansas S.C. Jurisdiction The jurisdiction and power of the Arkansas Supreme Court is The jurisdiction and power of the Arkansas Supreme Court is

controlled by Article 7, § 4 of the Arkansas Constitution. controlled by Article 7, § 4 of the Arkansas Constitution. Under this section, the Arkansas Supreme Court generally has Under this section, the Arkansas Supreme Court generally has

only appellate jurisdiction, meaning it typically hears cases that only appellate jurisdiction, meaning it typically hears cases that are appealed from trial courts. are appealed from trial courts.

The Arkansas Supreme Court also has general superintending The Arkansas Supreme Court also has general superintending control over all inferior courts of law and equity. Until 2000, control over all inferior courts of law and equity. Until 2000, Arkansas remained one of the few states with separate courts for Arkansas remained one of the few states with separate courts for law (circuit court) and for equity (chancery court). law (circuit court) and for equity (chancery court).

In November, 2000, the 80th amendment to the Arkansas In November, 2000, the 80th amendment to the Arkansas Constitution was approved by the voters of Arkansas. The Circuit Constitution was approved by the voters of Arkansas. The Circuit and Chancery Courts have merged into Circuit Courts, and and Chancery Courts have merged into Circuit Courts, and Municipal Courts have county-wide jurisdiction and were renamed Municipal Courts have county-wide jurisdiction and were renamed District Courts.District Courts.

Arkansas Court ElectionsArkansas Court Elections

The seven Arkansas Supreme Court judges are The seven Arkansas Supreme Court judges are elected in state-wide non-partisan races, and elected in state-wide non-partisan races, and serve staggered terms, such that it is unlikely all serve staggered terms, such that it is unlikely all members of the court would be replaced in one members of the court would be replaced in one election. election.

In the event a member of the court fails to serve In the event a member of the court fails to serve his entire term of office, the vacancy shall be his entire term of office, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the Governor of filled by appointment by the Governor of Arkansas. Ark. Const., amend. 29, §1. Arkansas. Ark. Const., amend. 29, §1.

Arkansas Courts of AppealsArkansas Courts of Appeals The Arkansas Court of Appeals was created in 1978 by The Arkansas Court of Appeals was created in 1978 by

Amendment 58 to the Arkansas Constitution. Amendment 58 to the Arkansas Constitution. In 1979, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 208 to In 1979, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 208 to

establish the Arkansas Court of Appeals as authorized by the establish the Arkansas Court of Appeals as authorized by the amendment and and to provide for the selection of the first amendment and and to provide for the selection of the first judges. judges.

The court handed down its first opinions for publication on August The court handed down its first opinions for publication on August 8, 1979. Although the creation of the Arkansas Court of Appeals 8, 1979. Although the creation of the Arkansas Court of Appeals provided relief for the Arkansas Supreme Court's growing docket, provided relief for the Arkansas Supreme Court's growing docket, continued growth required an increase in the size of the Arkansas continued growth required an increase in the size of the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals.

Legislation was adopted during the 1993 legislative session to Legislation was adopted during the 1993 legislative session to increase the Arkansas Court of Appeals from six to twelve increase the Arkansas Court of Appeals from six to twelve members. In 1995, the Arkansas General Assembly amended the members. In 1995, the Arkansas General Assembly amended the law. law.

ACAACA Pursuant to Act 1812 of 2003, the State of Arkansas is divided into Pursuant to Act 1812 of 2003, the State of Arkansas is divided into

seven (7) districts for the election of judges to the Arkansas Court of seven (7) districts for the election of judges to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, and the dates of electing the judges within each of these Appeals, and the dates of electing the judges within each of these districts is established. districts is established.

Pursuant to Amendment 58, qualifications for sitting on the Arkansas Pursuant to Amendment 58, qualifications for sitting on the Arkansas Court of Appeals are the same as those for sitting on the Arkansas Court of Appeals are the same as those for sitting on the Arkansas Supreme Court. Supreme Court.

The jurisdiction of the Arkansas Court of Appeals is determined by the The jurisdiction of the Arkansas Court of Appeals is determined by the Arkansas Supreme Court. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2 ("Appellate Arkansas Supreme Court. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2 ("Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals"). jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals").

There is no right of appeal from the Arkansas Court of Appeals to the There is no right of appeal from the Arkansas Court of Appeals to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Id. at 1-2(e). However, opinions decided by Arkansas Supreme Court. Id. at 1-2(e). However, opinions decided by the Arkansas Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Arkansas the Arkansas Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Arkansas Supreme Court on application by a party to the appeal, upon Supreme Court on application by a party to the appeal, upon certification of the Arkansas Court of Appeals, or if the Arkansas certification of the Arkansas Court of Appeals, or if the Arkansas Supreme Court decides the case is one that should have originally Supreme Court decides the case is one that should have originally been assigned to it. Id. been assigned to it. Id.

Circuit CourtsCircuit Courts Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 80, having taken effect on Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 80, having taken effect on

July 1, 2001, eliminated separate courts of law and courts of July 1, 2001, eliminated separate courts of law and courts of equity in Arkansas. equity in Arkansas.

Circuit courts are general jurisdiction trial courts. As of January Circuit courts are general jurisdiction trial courts. As of January 1, 2002, circuit courts consist of five subject matter divisions: 1, 2002, circuit courts consist of five subject matter divisions: CriminalCriminal CivilCivil ProbateProbate Domestic relationsDomestic relations JuvenileJuvenile

Judicial candidates for circuit judge will now run in nonpartisan Judicial candidates for circuit judge will now run in nonpartisan elections and are required to have been licensed attorneys in elections and are required to have been licensed attorneys in the state for six years preceding the date of assuming office. the state for six years preceding the date of assuming office. Circuit judges serve a six-year term. Circuit judges serve a six-year term.

District Courts & City CourtsDistrict Courts & City Courts

District courts, formerly known as municipal District courts, formerly known as municipal courts before passage of Amendment 80 to the courts before passage of Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution, exercise county-wide Arkansas Constitution, exercise county-wide jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases, preliminary jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases, preliminary felony cases, and civil cases in matters of less felony cases, and civil cases in matters of less than $5,000. than $5,000.

A small claims division of district court provides a A small claims division of district court provides a forum in which citizens represent themselves to forum in which citizens represent themselves to resolve minor civil matters. resolve minor civil matters.

The city courts operate in smaller communities The city courts operate in smaller communities where district courts do not exist and exercise where district courts do not exist and exercise city-wide jurisdiction.city-wide jurisdiction.

Crime & Punishment in the StatesCrime & Punishment in the States

State RankingsState Rankings http://www.morganquitno.com/http://www.morganquitno.com/

DANG00RANK.htmDANG00RANK.htm Arkansas Crime StatsArkansas Crime Stats

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/Search/Crime/State/statebystaterun.cfm?stateid=4statebystaterun.cfm?stateid=4

Crime in the StatesCrime in the States

Discussion: Broken Windows PolicyDiscussion: Broken Windows Policy Discussion: 85% Solution & PrisonsDiscussion: 85% Solution & Prisons