SOLUTIONS MANUAL
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: LAW AND PRACTICE
11TH EDITION
CHAPTER NO. 01: THE COURT SYSTEM, SOURCES OF RIGHTS, AND FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
End of Section Exercise Solutions
Test Your Understanding
END OF SECTION EXERCISE SOLUTIONS
1. “The United States has a dual court system.” Explain what this means and provide
examples.
ANSWER: The United States has a dual court system. This means that there is one
system for federal cases and another for state cases. However, the term dual court system
is misleading. In reality, the United States has fifty-two separate judicial systems,
representing the court systems in the fifty states, the federal system, and the courts of
Washington, D.C.
2. “The general rule is that a case is accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court for decision only if
that case has nationwide significance.” Is this statement true or false? Defend your
answer.
ANSWER: True. The Supreme Court only accepts cases that involve a federal statute
or a “significant federal question.” Many lawsuits do not involve these subjects and so
are not eligible for review by the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction,
meaning the case is brought to the Court directly instead of on appeal, over certain cases
as specified in the Constitution. The vast majority of cases, however, reach the Court
either on appeal or on a writ of certiorari. The Court reviews cases on appeal because it
must. In reality, however, the Court does not have to consider a case on appeal on its
merits, because it can avoid full consideration by saying that the case “lacks substantial
federal question” to deserve full consideration by the Court. The Court most commonly
accepts cases when there is a difference of opinion between the federal courts of appeal
that have considered the particular issue.
3. A court decision is effective only within a limited jurisdiction.” What does this mean?
Give an example.
, ANSWER: The power of every U.S. court to try and decide cases is limited in some
way. One type of limitation is territorial or geographic. A judicial decision is
authoritative and has value as precedent for future cases only within the geographic
limits of the area in which the deciding court has jurisdiction. When a district court
encompasses an entire state, as is the case in Maine or Alaska, its decision on a
federal law produces a uniform rule within the state. However, in a state such as
California, where there are multiple districts, there can be divergent and even
conflicting decisions even on the district court level.
The same process operates in the state court systems, but in one regard, state
supreme court decisions are recognized as extending beyond state borders. Because
the Constitution declares the sovereignty of the states within the area reserved for
state control, the court of last resort in each state is the final arbiter of issues of purely
state and local law.
4. “Every criminal act can be prosecuted in both federal and state courts.” Is this statement
true or false? Explain your answer.
ANSWER: The rule that determines whether a criminal case should be filed and
tried in federal or state court is this: If an act is a violation of federal law, the trial will
be held in a federal court; if an act is a violation of state law, the trial will be held in a
state court. A crime that violates both federal and state laws (such as kidnapping,
transportation of narcotics, counterfeiting, or robbery of a federally insured bank)
may be tried in both federal and state courts if the prosecutors so desire.
5. Distinguish between judicial review and judicial precedent.
ANSWER: Judicial precedent means that decisions of courts have value as precedent
for future cases with similar fact patterns. A decision is precedent only for cases that
come within that court’s jurisdiction. Judicial review is defined as the power of any
court to hold unconstitutional and hence unenforceable any law, any official action
based on a law, or any other action by a public official that it deems to be in
conflict with the Constitution. The judicial review doctrine applies to laws passed by
Congress, laws passed by state legislatures, ordinances passed by municipalities,
and acts of public officials. Thus, it is clearly a significant doctrine. It means that a
law passed by the legislature can and will be reviewed by the courts, if a proper case
is brought, and declared unenforceable if found to violate the Constitution.
6. How does jurisdiction differ from venue?
,ANSWER: Jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to try a case. A court’s
jurisdiction is determined by the law that created the court and defined its powers.
The term venue is place-oriented. The general rule is that cases must be tried in
the place where the crime was committed. Legislation establishes mandatory
venue for some types of cases and preferred venue for others.
, 7. What is the rule of law? What are its implications for police officers?
ANSWER: Rule of law means that no person is above the law; every person, from
the most powerful public official down to the least powerful individual, is subject to
the law and can be held accountable in court for their actions. Should laws passed by
legislatures that seek to protect the public from external threats be allowed to limit
individual rights that have traditionally been protected by the Constitution? This is a
question the Supreme Court has already considered and will continue to consider as
cases are brought before it as further events unfold.
Second, police accountability in the United States is closely tied to the concept of the
rule of law. In many countries, the police are immensely powerful, with little or no
accountability for their actions. In the United States, however, criminal and civil
liabilities are an ever-present reality in policing and represent the apex of police
accountability. Law enforcement officers, from the police chief to a newly hired recruit,
can be and are held criminally and civilly liable for what they do. The public considers
this accountability a classic illustration of the concept that no person in this country, not
even one wearing a badge of authority, is above the law. Rule of law, therefore, is a
concept that law enforcement officers in the United States must be fully aware of and
understand if they are to perform their tasks properly, constitutionally, and with
minimum fear of liability.
8. What is the incorporation controversy? How did it originate?
ANSWER: The incorporation controversy refers to the debate over whether the Bill of
Rights in the U.S. Constitution (referring to Amendments 1–10) protects against
violations of rights by the federal government only or whether it also limits acts by state
and local government officials. In short, does the Bill of Rights apply to the states? The
question of what constitutional rights are to be incorporated into the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment (and therefore held applicable to the states) is an
issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over a period of years, on a case-by-case (and
right-by-right) basis. Therefore, although the fundamental rights granted by the Bill of
Rights were originally meant to cover only violations by federal officers, the wording
of the Fourteenth Amendment (specifically, the Due Process Clause) has been
interpreted by the Court, in various cases over the years, to prohibit violations of
rights by either federal or state officers. In other words, those rights that are
incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment apply to state as well as federal
criminal proceedings.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: LAW AND PRACTICE
11TH EDITION
CHAPTER NO. 01: THE COURT SYSTEM, SOURCES OF RIGHTS, AND FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
End of Section Exercise Solutions
Test Your Understanding
END OF SECTION EXERCISE SOLUTIONS
1. “The United States has a dual court system.” Explain what this means and provide
examples.
ANSWER: The United States has a dual court system. This means that there is one
system for federal cases and another for state cases. However, the term dual court system
is misleading. In reality, the United States has fifty-two separate judicial systems,
representing the court systems in the fifty states, the federal system, and the courts of
Washington, D.C.
2. “The general rule is that a case is accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court for decision only if
that case has nationwide significance.” Is this statement true or false? Defend your
answer.
ANSWER: True. The Supreme Court only accepts cases that involve a federal statute
or a “significant federal question.” Many lawsuits do not involve these subjects and so
are not eligible for review by the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction,
meaning the case is brought to the Court directly instead of on appeal, over certain cases
as specified in the Constitution. The vast majority of cases, however, reach the Court
either on appeal or on a writ of certiorari. The Court reviews cases on appeal because it
must. In reality, however, the Court does not have to consider a case on appeal on its
merits, because it can avoid full consideration by saying that the case “lacks substantial
federal question” to deserve full consideration by the Court. The Court most commonly
accepts cases when there is a difference of opinion between the federal courts of appeal
that have considered the particular issue.
3. A court decision is effective only within a limited jurisdiction.” What does this mean?
Give an example.
, ANSWER: The power of every U.S. court to try and decide cases is limited in some
way. One type of limitation is territorial or geographic. A judicial decision is
authoritative and has value as precedent for future cases only within the geographic
limits of the area in which the deciding court has jurisdiction. When a district court
encompasses an entire state, as is the case in Maine or Alaska, its decision on a
federal law produces a uniform rule within the state. However, in a state such as
California, where there are multiple districts, there can be divergent and even
conflicting decisions even on the district court level.
The same process operates in the state court systems, but in one regard, state
supreme court decisions are recognized as extending beyond state borders. Because
the Constitution declares the sovereignty of the states within the area reserved for
state control, the court of last resort in each state is the final arbiter of issues of purely
state and local law.
4. “Every criminal act can be prosecuted in both federal and state courts.” Is this statement
true or false? Explain your answer.
ANSWER: The rule that determines whether a criminal case should be filed and
tried in federal or state court is this: If an act is a violation of federal law, the trial will
be held in a federal court; if an act is a violation of state law, the trial will be held in a
state court. A crime that violates both federal and state laws (such as kidnapping,
transportation of narcotics, counterfeiting, or robbery of a federally insured bank)
may be tried in both federal and state courts if the prosecutors so desire.
5. Distinguish between judicial review and judicial precedent.
ANSWER: Judicial precedent means that decisions of courts have value as precedent
for future cases with similar fact patterns. A decision is precedent only for cases that
come within that court’s jurisdiction. Judicial review is defined as the power of any
court to hold unconstitutional and hence unenforceable any law, any official action
based on a law, or any other action by a public official that it deems to be in
conflict with the Constitution. The judicial review doctrine applies to laws passed by
Congress, laws passed by state legislatures, ordinances passed by municipalities,
and acts of public officials. Thus, it is clearly a significant doctrine. It means that a
law passed by the legislature can and will be reviewed by the courts, if a proper case
is brought, and declared unenforceable if found to violate the Constitution.
6. How does jurisdiction differ from venue?
,ANSWER: Jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to try a case. A court’s
jurisdiction is determined by the law that created the court and defined its powers.
The term venue is place-oriented. The general rule is that cases must be tried in
the place where the crime was committed. Legislation establishes mandatory
venue for some types of cases and preferred venue for others.
, 7. What is the rule of law? What are its implications for police officers?
ANSWER: Rule of law means that no person is above the law; every person, from
the most powerful public official down to the least powerful individual, is subject to
the law and can be held accountable in court for their actions. Should laws passed by
legislatures that seek to protect the public from external threats be allowed to limit
individual rights that have traditionally been protected by the Constitution? This is a
question the Supreme Court has already considered and will continue to consider as
cases are brought before it as further events unfold.
Second, police accountability in the United States is closely tied to the concept of the
rule of law. In many countries, the police are immensely powerful, with little or no
accountability for their actions. In the United States, however, criminal and civil
liabilities are an ever-present reality in policing and represent the apex of police
accountability. Law enforcement officers, from the police chief to a newly hired recruit,
can be and are held criminally and civilly liable for what they do. The public considers
this accountability a classic illustration of the concept that no person in this country, not
even one wearing a badge of authority, is above the law. Rule of law, therefore, is a
concept that law enforcement officers in the United States must be fully aware of and
understand if they are to perform their tasks properly, constitutionally, and with
minimum fear of liability.
8. What is the incorporation controversy? How did it originate?
ANSWER: The incorporation controversy refers to the debate over whether the Bill of
Rights in the U.S. Constitution (referring to Amendments 1–10) protects against
violations of rights by the federal government only or whether it also limits acts by state
and local government officials. In short, does the Bill of Rights apply to the states? The
question of what constitutional rights are to be incorporated into the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment (and therefore held applicable to the states) is an
issue decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over a period of years, on a case-by-case (and
right-by-right) basis. Therefore, although the fundamental rights granted by the Bill of
Rights were originally meant to cover only violations by federal officers, the wording
of the Fourteenth Amendment (specifically, the Due Process Clause) has been
interpreted by the Court, in various cases over the years, to prohibit violations of
rights by either federal or state officers. In other words, those rights that are
incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment apply to state as well as federal
criminal proceedings.
