Examining Multistate Court Procedure

You are here: /commentary/examining-multistate-court-procedure

The U.S. Constitution sets the tone for court procedure in every state. This is not to say that the states don't have a say in their court proceedings or that they will be penalized for being skewed from good behavior when making a mistake. The U.S. District Courts demonstrate a flexibility in court procedure when examining different venues while still maintaining conduct within a unifying framework.

ABA provides an outline of a generalized court procedure that is modeled with FRCP rules in mind. The courts are not required to follow this outline but it may need only minor adjustments in various venues.

Learning court procedure as a bachelor or masters degree student is different than acing 6th to 9th grade Social Studies, U.S. Government, and U.S. History followed by an after school job at a law firm or legal aid foundation, as an office assistant. Additionally, the younger student may also have a different context of bootcamp, P.E. summer school, civil action groups, flight simulators, and observation of ground forces, than a 35-40 year old studying Geneva Conventions, Civil Rights, the UDHR, and Lobbying. In international peacekeeping operations involving national documents, reinforcements and backup can arrive from any of 194 countries, many of them signatories to the founding documents of the United States.

It stands to reason that Constitutional Authorities would be at the forefront of court procedure and not left as an afterthought to presenting argument in court. The purpose of speedy trial is to complete as much of the court procedure as possible during each scheduled hearing and to not prolong the administration of justice any longer than necessary. While this seems complicated, when starting at the constitution and working toward the U.S. Code, it becomes more feasible to logically complete court procedure with a high rate of effectiveness for every case. Adding in State law requires examining for consistency or State Rights.

Some court procedures must be done in phases for lack of competent counsel. This does not indicate ineffectiveness, it simply means a person may not have learned that part of the court procedure yet. It helps to be honest with qualifications and abilities and to highlight parts of the case counsel is yet unfamiliar with.

"Any Civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader may be brought in the judicial district in which one or more of the claimants resides." 28 U.S.C. §1397

"The district courts shall have jurisdiction of any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader filed by any person, firm, or association having in its custody or possession property of the value of $500 or more" 28 U.S.C. §1335(a)

Constitutional Court Procedure

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech - U.S. Const. Amdt. 1
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances - U.S. Const. Amdt. 1
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have compulsory processes for obtaining witnesses in their favor - U.S. Const. Amdt. 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have compulsory processes to have the Assistance of Counsel for their defence - U.S. Const. Amdt. 6
In Suits at common law, the right to a jury trial will be preserved. - U.S. Const. Amdt. 7
In Suits at common law, no fact tried by jury shall be re-examined except under the rules of common law. - U.S. Const. Amdt. 7
In Suits at common law, the value of the controversy should exceed $20 - U.S. Const. Amdt. 7
No person shall be subject for the same offence twice - U.S. Const. Amdt. 5
No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed - U.S. Const. Art. I sec. 9,10
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. - U.S. Const. Art. IV sec. 2
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court. - U.S. Const. Art. VI sec. 1
The judicial power shall extend to controversies between citizens of different states. - U.S. Const. Art. VI sec. 2
Full faith and credit shall be giving to the Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State - U.S. Const. Art. IV sec. 1
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - U.S. Const. Amdt. 10
The Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme Law of the Land. - U.S. Const. Art. VI cl. 2

Within this context, Congress allows the U.S. Supreme Court to have rule making power over their court procedure through 28 U.S.C. §2071 and U.S. Const. Art. 1 Sec 1 cl. 1. The courts have used this to establish the FRCP which sets a pace to arrive at a reasonable conclusion such as a jury verdict or decision by judge, justice, or magistrate. These are rules for court proceedings based in constitutional law.

Using the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code Title 28, a framework becomes evident in court procedure that is logical, reasonable, and usable in achieving the administration of justice.

State law can be used as a rule of decision 28 U.S.C. §1652
Each court will determine the order in which civil actions are heard and determined 28 U.S.C. §1657
A civil action must be filed within 4 years after the cause of action (date of incident) 28 U.S.C. § 1658
Venue shall be set where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions took place, any judicial district in which the defendant is subject to the courts personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1),(2),(3)
The district court may transfer such case to any district or division in which the case could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)
For the convenience of parties or in the interest of justice, the district court may transfer the case to any district or division where all parties have consented. 28 U.S.C. § 1404
A proceeding to recover a fine, penalty, or forfeiture can be prosecuted where the defendant is found. 28 U.S.C. § 1395(a), U.S. Const. Art. IV sec. 2 cl. 3, Art. IV sec. 1, U.S. Const. Amdt. 6,5
Civil actions pending in different districts can be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated proceedings. This requires a judicial panel. 28 U.S.C. § 1407
Civil actions brought in State court can be removed to district courts. 28 U.S.C. §1441, 1446, 1443
State record may be supplied when removing a case to district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1449
District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §1331; U.S. Const. Amdt. 14, 5
District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the amount of the controversy is in excess of $75k AND the parties are citizens of different states or of a State and a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. §1332
District courts shall have original jurisdiction of all nonjury civil action against a foreign state and for claims for relief from a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. §1330, U.S. Const. Art. III sec. 2 cl. 1, 2

While the district courts seem to have original jurisdiction over all suits of common law exceeding $20 in controversy, they often defer to the states for the majority of court procedure. They prefer having procedural jurisdiction and provide venue where a party can escalate a complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court to receive determination on a claim of court error.

For matters exceeding $75k between citizens of multiple states, the district courts might provide a more expedient venue. They are allowed to examine state law, the place where the majority of events took place, and to make a determination on a matter of state law. This is all per Congressional law.

However, this does not prevent a party from filing a case in State venue and raising a federal question on due process regarding the defending party, serving notice, and their own rights as a defendant. Electronic court is making progress in establishing more rights in U.S. Court Procedure.

Case Determinations

Supreme Court determinations are considered authoritative meaning it may be mandatory for a lower court to follow its ruling. Cases from district courts, state courts and even court of appeals are persuasive meaning the Supreme Court may or may not agree with them. As a legal researcher, if there is a legal argument to be made in a case, it is often in the best interest of justice to pursue that argument if it is efficient, related to the case, and proves or disproves guilt or liability for a party.

There are hundreds of judicial opinions and over several thousand pages of text in reporter volumes, supplements, and now published on individual court websites. A legal researcher will often have notes or copies of opinions related to the types of cases they normally work on and others that they are considering for counsel. This is a personal library and every researchers library will be different.

Some important case determinations can be referenced regarding court procedure and persuasive or mandatory rulings if they are from a Supreme Court. If they are from an appeals court and have not been overruled, they may be helpful. However, the goal is to not have to relitigate on court error if they are overruled within a specific time after a verdict or decision.

466 U.S. 668, Counsels error must have significantly affected the outcomes of a case in order for it to be considered ineffective counsel.
496 U.S. 384, Rules are designed to facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of cases.
14 Civ. S.D.N.Y 6759, Discovery should reduce the need for close judicial involvement and ensure proportionality in discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 26(a)(1)(A)(iii))
498 U.S. 533, Good faith does not preclude a party from being sanctioned if they submit erroneous information (FRCP 11(c)).
397 U.S. 759, Defendants are entitled to effective assistance of competent counsel. The right to counsel is the right to competent counsel (U.S. Const. Amdt. 6).

The case determinations show specific court philosophy in the sense that they are pondering the administration of justice and correlating it to laws, court rules, precedent, and statuses regarding specific cases. This can mean a case is in a specific part of court procedure and affects a party in a certain way that is not readily evident by the filing. It can also be a social status that is affected by the grievance.

When looking at Constitutional Rights, Laws, Case Determinations and statuses or the specific details of a case, a trend is evident on court procedure that can be graphed on a flow chart and accompanied with checklists. This increases the likelyhood of providing effective counsel, and experience builds confidence.

Legal Dictionaries

Definitions can add context to court procedure. The terms res judicata and double jeopardy make it evident that constitutional rights in criminal proceedings are persuasive towards constitutional rights in civil proceedings and vice versa. This is further elaborated in FRCP 13(a),(b). Dictionaries should fit with the context of the court procedure, its laws, rights, and obligations towards justice.

The definitions indicate that a case can only be tried once. Currently, appeals are used to address court error, procedural omissions, abridging or omitting certain rights in court procedure, or addressing determinations that are not within the context of law. In certain cases, this can result in a retrial. In most cases, the appeals court will make a determination on a procedural cause and remand the case back to trial. This is wrong because of this court error is a better appeal argument than this is wrong because I don't like the outcome. How did the court err and how did it affect the outcome of the case?

A Case Study in Multidistrict Offenses

While many internet contexts are relevant in multidistrict court procedure, it helps to decouple the context to examine a more generalized case study. This helps with reducing bias and increasing fairness.

A young girl boards a train to meet a dating match made through an algorithmic smartphone platform. She travels across 9 states including that of her own and the person she is meeting. While she was traveling, did any significant portions of an event occur, such as messaging her date through the app aboard the trains wifi? Would this count as sufficient contacts to bring her under jurisdiction of each state she travelled through? What about her date? Did he communicate with her through the app in each of the states?

Was she a traveling visitor only? How does the concept of sufficient contacts with a state change if she was messaging or not messaging while present in the state?

Pick 9 states that are connected to each other as starting point and ending point to discover the pertinent laws: https://www.amtrak.com/plan-your-trip.html

use internet keywords

How Internet Law Works

When examining internet complaints, the complaint often goes by the two endpoints. The significant amount of the events occurred on each of the computers or networks in the incident. While traffic may have been passed between other endpoints such as routers, switches, or data centers, that traffic may not have affected much. If in the course of the traffic reaching its final destination, an internet device was affected or damaged causing an outage or virus infection, that is normally treated as a separate incident initially which can later be consolidated to the primary cause of hearing.

The primary cause of hearing can also change throughout the court procedure as facts are discovered. However, each cause should receive a determination through verdict or decision. How does this affect the context of the traveling smartphone date?

Sources

466 U.S. 668, Strickland v. Washington (1984)

496 U.S. 384, Cooter v. Hartmarx (1990)

14 Civ. S.D.N.Y 6759, Robertson v. People (2014)

498 U.S. 533, Business v. Chromatic (1991)

397 U.S. 759, McMann v. Richardson (1969)

Double Jeopardy, definition, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy

Res Judicata, definition, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/res_judicata