The Georgia constitution vests the judicial power of the state in seven classes of courts.

I have the 2 milestones for you to look at for final submission

State and Federal Judges

Judges are considered as important personnel in both judicial administration and management of court schedules and caseloads as well as the judicial process. This study examines Georgia’s State and Federal judges in aspects including who they are and their roles as well as the similarities and differences in their roles. Understanding these aspects would illuminate the judicial administration challenges experienced in the State and Federal court systems.

Roles, Qualifications and Duties of State Judges

The Georgia constitution vests the judicial power of the state in seven classes of courts. The trial level courts are divided into five classes including juvenile, probate state, superior and magistrate courts. Georgia consists of seventy counties where state court judges play a major role in ruling over misdemeanor violations including traffic cases and adjudicate civil actions. State judges are also given authority to preside over hearings on solicitations for an issuance of search and arrest warrants. Besides, state judges are mandated to hold preliminary hearings. State court judges are elected and are allowed to hold office for 4-year terms. To be appointed as a state court judge, one is required to be at least 25 years old and has been practicing law for more than seven years. Further, one has toprove that they have resided in the state for at least 3 years. Moreover, state judges that work part-time schedules are allowed to practice law, but not in their own courts.

Roles, Qualifications and Duties of Federal Judges

The federal court hears cases pertaining to habeas corpus, bankruptcy, cases that deal with the constitutionality of a law and admiralty law among others. The federal court has been assigned judicial power by the constitution. The selection process of federal judges differs from one state to the other and is also different from that of state judges. Federal judges are mainly in charge of district courts are selected for life based on their behavior (Hill & Hill, 2018). Their appointment is also based on the recommendations made by senators. However, confirmation hearings are conducted by the senate judicial committee before a federal judge is appointed. Moreover, the constitution has not specified the required qualification for one to become a federal judge and his appointment is typically based on recommendations.

A major difference between the state and federal courts lies in their jurisdiction. Jurisdiction can be understood as the kind of cases that are heard in each court. The state courts deals in various cases including cases of robbery, family disputes, unfulfilled contracts and traffic violations among others. State courts are not mandated to hear lawsuits against the U.S government and those that involve federal laws (Friedman, 2004). On the other hand, the Federal courts are sanctioned by the constitution to preside over cases that are itemized in the constitution and are specifically allowed by the Congress. Cases that can be heard by the federal court include those where the U.S state is involved, cases involving violation of the state’s constitutional laws, maritime, copyright and bankruptcy cases as well as cases involving citizens of different states and the damages in question exceeds $75000 (FindLaw, n.d.). Some cases however, can be heard either in the state or federal law or in such a case; the aggrieved parties are therefore free to choose to solve their case in either of the courts. When it comes to the caseloads, State courts often deal with a wider jurisdiction are have more contact with the public compared to Federal courts. Further, though federal courts have a narrower jurisdiction, the cases presented to them are of great national importance.

References

FindLaw. (n.d.). Federal vs. State Courts – Key Differences. Retrieved from https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/federa…

Friedman, B. (2004). Under the Law of Federal Jurisdiction: Allocating Cases between Federal and State Courts. Colum. L. Rev., 104, 1211.

Hill, M. B., & Hill, G. L. W. (2018). The Georgia State Constitution. Oxford University Press.

Judicial Administration

Docket refers to the records that entail the court proceedings and filings of a case. Dockets are public records in the US. Calendaring in the courts deals with listing cases and when the hearing will get to be held on a specific day. They usually get revised to prevent collision since high case numbers make the process of scheduling difficult. Moreover, the court dockets get maintained in electronic forms, and the primary advantage of this mechanism is that it allows efficiency for the courts. Dockets show names of involved parties in a case as well as proceedings. Other details include time for a hearing, documents submitted, and presiding judge (Steelman, 2012). Effective case flow management promotes justice both at the individual and across the judicial court system. Therefore, defendants will get to receive a fair and speedy trial. Court dockets contain the filed materials, and each case gets assigned with a docket number. This management allows each case to get the necessary attention. Moreover, it fosters justice as well as a timely disposition of cases, hence enhancing effectiveness. Federal courts enjoy efficiency more than the local courts since they use an individual calendar. They have a clear deadline as well as specific dates for events. This makes things get done. Ultimately, quality of justice gets boosted through such an organization, and it leads to effectiveness in the flow of cases and management of trials.

Calendaring and Continuance

In this case, the defense attorneys request for continuance for four months. However, the state and federal courts handle such incidences differently. The federal system works with an individual calendar. Additionally, one judge handles a case right from the start to the end. Since a specific individual takes charge of calendaring the cases, the judges maintain control over the cases. In this scenario, calendaring will occur in a short period, and the continuance will get granted, but within a shorter period. It will also get granted when warranted (Schweigert, 2012). Meanwhile, the state system handles several cases, which makes calendaring difficult. Several judges handle a case, and the issuance of continuance may significantly affect scheduling. However, unless reasons offered for requesting continuance is justifiable, the court may not grant continuance. In this scenario, the court must ensure it grants the parties constitutional rights, but the case should not interfere with the cases on the calendar and workflow.

Key Role Impacting Process

The crucial role within the federal court systems entails case jurisdiction that involves the violation of the Constitution, such as state to state disputes, ministers and ambassadors, laws of the US, among others. Meanwhile, in the state judicial system, it handles cases that entail the violation of laws like criminal cases in the state as well as others related to contracts and family issues (Administrative Office of the US Courts, 2019). The key role, jurisdiction, helps in the creation of efficient and effective judicial systems since each sector of the Constitution is well addressed, because each system covers specific State concern.

Impact of Venue

Several factors determine the venue of cases. An instance is where a crime occurred and the area where the perpetrators got found. Thus, venue is where a suspect resides, or the place where a crime took place. In this case, Washington DC is the venue, and if the case is to be heard by the state, the venue will be the nearest court to the bank where the robbery occurred. Therefore, the venue will impact the case in all the litigation stages, and significantly impact its value. The crime occurred in the are that the venue got chosen. It is much more convenient, and the cost of litigating will be less compared to choosing another venue. The process will further be convenient since the FBI took custody of the money, making Washington DC the best choice for proceedings.

Continuance

Continuance offers prosecution or the defense additional time for preparation. In this case, the defense seeks a continuance to prepare. However, granting the continuance, in this case, may further increase workload to the court and delay case resolution. Granting the continuance will affect the court’s efficiency. There will be delays in the judicial system. The federal court will be forced to fix time, which further affects the judicial process.

References

David C. Steelman, E. F. (2012). CALENDARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE ANCHORAGE DISTRICT COUR. National Center for State Courts, 26-28.

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts . (2019). Comparing Federal & State Courts. Retrieved from Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts : https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts.

Schweigert, M. B. (2012, march 25). Federal courts run on individual calendar — would it work here? Retrieved from Lancaster Online: https://lancasteronline.com/news/federal-courts-ru…

jus261_final_project_guidelines_and_rubric